On my return from Bournemouth I set to work to get up a list of candidates for Guardians for the ensuing year. It was necessary to get thirteen, as I had only five supporters. It is true that they were the most respectable men on the Board. I was not very long in getting three respectable ratepayers to stand for St. Anne's; but the great difficulty was in St. James's, where ten were required; and if it had not have happened that the Rev. Henry Sheringham, Vicar of St. Peter's, Great Windmill Street, exerted himself most earnestly, we could not have succeeded at all. He not only came forward himself, but he induced a colleague, the Vicar of St. John's, Great Marlborough Street, and four very wealthy and well-known gentlemen in St. James's to do likewise. The obtaining of four others ceased to be a matter of difficulty. The Rev. H. Sheringham took the greatest interest in the election, and it was through his help that the Bishop of London, the Marquis of Waterford, and a large number of the nobility and gentry, bankers, and others who were ratepayers in St. James's, and up to that date had never voted in any election of Guardians, were, on this occasion, secured.

Mr. Sheringham was the incumbent of the poorest district in St. James's, and consequently he was constantly brought into contact with those who had either been inmates, or had friends in the House, and for a long time he had been cognisant of Mr. Bliss's management, and of the Chairman's support of the master. When I was suspended, Mr. Sheringham showed his feeling by going round to some of the leading people in St. James's and getting them to sign the testimonial in my favour, and at the election in the following April he worked hard all day long to get rid of the Chairman and his party.

It may be thought by those who have followed this narrative of Poor Law management in 1883, that I had not sufficiently referred to the action of Mr. W. J. Fraser, solicitor, of Soho Square, and of 191, Clapham Road, but it does not arise from want of gratitude to this gentleman, who has known me for many years, who asked me to see poor Watson in 1872, who induced me to become a candidate for the office the same year, and whose worthy father used to take an honest pride in bringing him to my house nearly thirty years before, to show me how he had got on during his half-year's schooling. If it had not been for the high sense of conscientiousness, and his invariable hatred of such wrong-doing as was implied in the support of such a person as J. Bliss, as a young solicitor he could not have made so great a sacrifice of time, of labour, and of money.

The fact of Mr. Bliss being no longer master of the Westminster Workhouse, and his chief supporter no longer in power as the Chairman of the Westminster Union, with all its possible advantages, is owing almost entirely to Mr. W. J. Fraser, who, recognizing the wrong-doing of both, exerted himself untiringly to get rid of both, which he achieved with singularly complete success.

It was not until just before Christmas that one of the Guardians who was friendly to me, told me that a letter had just been received from the Local Government Board, directing me to resume my duties, thereby removing my suspension; at the same time saying there was an oblique reference to me at the end of the letter. "Oh," I replied, "I understand all about that; but I can afford to let that pass so long as the President supports me."

I returned to my duties, but had it not been for the fact that my nurses (one woman excepted, who was Bliss's confidant, and whom I would have got rid of months before for incompetence and worse qualities) welcomed me back, as did the sick inmates, whose friend I had tried to be, I really should have hesitated to continue in my office, for every form of petty obstructiveness was exhibited by the master, matron, the master's clerk, the Chairman, and his followers. The only retaliation in my power was to draft questions and get them put in the House. This process made the names and doings of the majority of the Westminster Board of Guardians come out rather awkwardly before the public and the ratepayers of the Union; the extraordinary circumstance being that both parties, or rather I may state all parties, in the House assisted me in getting these questions put to Ministers.

At last the election took place. I feel pretty well convinced that when the Chairman saw our list of candidates and who were the nominators, consisting as they did of most of the nobility, gentry, bankers, clergy, and leading ratepayers in both parishes, he felt that his reign was over, but he did not think, even then, that his defeat could have been so complete and overwhelming, for not only was he left in an absurd minority, but his twelve followers were left also.

Subjoined is a copy of the address sent to the ratepayers of both parishes.

"Election of Guardians.

"To the Ratepayers of the Parish of St. James, Piccadilly, and St. Anne, Soho.

"My Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—Having been nominated to be Guardians to represent St. James's Parish as well as that of St. Anne's, Soho, at the Westminster Union, by many of the nobility, clergy, gentry, and leading tradesmen and large ratepayers of both parishes, we confidently solicit your votes and support at the approaching election.

"We wish it to be understood that, in offering ourselves as candidates, we are actuated by no personal motives or considerations whatever, but solely by a desire to secure the faithful, humane, and economical administration of the laws relating to the relief of the poor in the Westminster Union.

"Public attention has, during the past year, been frequently drawn to serious complaints respecting the treatment of inmates, subordinate officials and others in, and visitors to, the Poland Street Workhouse, and it is very widely felt that a searching and careful investigation should be instituted without delay into matters vitally affecting the comfort, happiness, and welfare of a large body of poor and helpless people, such as inhabit our workhouses.

"We beg to draw your attention to the accompanying copies of two letters addressed by the Local Government Board to the late Guardians; and also to the enclosed copy of an article which appeared in The Standard newspaper.

"Many of the ratepayers will learn with surprise that, notwithstanding the serious and grave charges substantiated against the master of the Workhouse, at the Local Government Board inquiry, held by two of their Inspectors, a large majority of the late Guardians felt themselves able formally to record their confidence in the master.

"It should be clearly understood that this inquiry was demanded by a small minority of the Guardians, who found themselves powerless to bring to light or redress in any other way the flagrant abuses of which they had been informed. And at the same time it should be known that those Guardians upon whom devolved the duty of conducting the inquiry, were denied, both by the majority of the Board, who were opposed to any action being taken, and also by the master, both before and at the time of the inquiry, all access to inmates and resident officers, whose evidence was essential to establish the charges alleged. It was, therefore, only with the greatest difficulty that the necessary evidence could be collected.

"We have further to state that, after the decision of the Local Government Board was communicated to the Guardians, and when all the facts of the case were fully before them, the Chairman and the majority of the Board presented to Mr. Bliss, in the Board-room of the Poland Street Workhouse, a testimonial, in the form of a sum of money, ostensibly for the purpose of defraying the expenses of his professional adviser in conducting his defence during the inquiry into his conduct.

"It may be added that the Chairman, when compelled to admonish Mr. Bliss, in accordance with the directions of the Local Government Board, did so with reluctance, entertaining, it would seem, the belief that the master was not guilty of all or any of the charges proved against him; and, when so admonished, the master himself expressed no regret that the charges set forth in the Local Government Board's letter should have been held to be established against him, and gave no assurance whatever that he would comport himself differently in future.

"Thus the official inquiry was rendered practically abortive, owing, as we believe, to the action of the majority of the Guardians in virtually upholding the master, in the face of such overwhelming evidence of misconduct.

"Various complaints have since been made both by inmates and officers respecting their treatment, and, notwithstanding the recent inquiry, the internal condition of the Workhouse remains up to the present time unaltered and unimproved.

"It is for these reasons that we feel it our duty to offer ourselves as candidates at the present election, believing that the ratepayers of St. James's and of St. Anne's, Soho, will no longer be able to place confidence in the Board as lately constituted, and that they will demand a searching inquiry into the whole system of the management of the Poland Street Workhouse.

"If, therefore, it be your pleasure to elect us as your representatives on the Board, we shall address ourselves, without fear or favour, promptly and impartially to the consideration of every matter requiring attention; and with the co-operation of the Local Government Board, which we doubt not will readily be given, we shall make it our chief aim and endeavour to remove all legitimate grievances, and to secure humane and kindly treatment for the many aged sick and helpless inmates of our Workhouse.

"We have the honour to remain, 
"Your most obedient servants, 
"——."

As the election had mainly turned on the conduct of Mr. Bliss, one of the first things done by the new Board when it met was to suspend Mr. Bliss from his office, which being done, shortly afterwards a committee of the Board met and drew up an indictment against him; but as the Department had condoned the whole of the thirteen charges which were considered proved, they could not raise any of these again; but as Mr. Fraser was aware that the complaints I had made subsequent to the inquiry had been ignored by the late Chairman and his friends, and that the duplicate copy had never been acknowledged by the Department, I, and the nurse of the receiving wards, and the head nurse on the female side, were called to prove the order given by me, the refusal of the matron and the master to comply with it, the woman's condition when admitted, her state on her arrival at Cleveland Street Asylum, the remarks as to her exhausted condition when carried by the porter in his arms, she being too ill to walk; all these facts were shown to be absolutely true, and were completely borne out by evidence. Other matters against Mr. Bliss were also gone into and forwarded to the Local Government Board, and with it an intimation that it was the desire of the new Board that he should not be permitted to return to his duties. Whilst away in Belfast, where I went in the month of August to deliver my customary annual address on Poor Law Medical Relief, I received a telegram that Sir Charles Dilke had called on Mr. J. Bliss to resign.

When the master was suspended I can hardly describe the relief I experienced, it was so great. No longer did I dread loud-mouthed expressions of dissent from me in my treatment of the sick, no longer did I fear that he would stalk, unannounced, through the female sick wards when I was examining the poor women; but instead of it there was respectful quiet and orderly behaviour. The matron, who ought to have been sent away also, kept out of my way and was obsequiously obliging when I gave a necessary order. One person only did I at once bring to book—it was the head nurse on the male side. After the formation of the new Board, I immediately drew up and sent in a list of charges against her, comprising refusal to obey my orders, complicity in and support of certain malingerers who she falsely informed me were ill. One of these I had discovered some months before to be an impostor, and ordered his discharge, but the nurse got her friend Bliss to direct his return, thus flouting my authority. She did not stop to meet my charges, but sent in her resignation, and, it being accepted, these complaints were not investigated. I speedily got rid of the malingerer also, and during the remainder of the time I held office the man remained out of the sick ward. What was the tie between the nurse and this malingerer I was never able to divine.

During the latter part of April, the whole of May, and the first part of June, 1884, there had been an outbreak of fever at the Union schools on Wandsworth Common, and it appeared that the medical officer of the schools, the Visiting Committee, and the Poor Law Medical Inspector, could throw no light on the causes of it, when it was suggested at the Board that I should be sent down to examine into the matter and report to the Board thereon. I wrote to the medical officer informing him of the Board's wish, and asked him to arrange a time to meet me and we would go into the subject together. He was not sufficiently courteous even to acknowledge my letter. I then asked a member of the Board (a builder) to accompany me, which he did.

On my arrival at the schools I requested the attendance of the superintendent and matron, as I wished to state the object of my visit and to obtain from them certain information as regards the commencement of the outbreak, the symptoms presented by the sick, &c. I also elicited from them that the medical officer had said that he would not meet me—an act of discourtesy to the Board, whose joint officers we were.

I speedily ascertained that the outbreak commenced amongst the girls, and had been almost entirely limited to the female side of the House, and of these girls those mainly who were employed in the laundry. But as I wanted to make a complete examination of all the water supply, I asked the Guardian to pioneer the way in our general survey. With this object I got out upon the roof of the main building and peered into all the cisterns. I did not discover anything vastly amiss in these, and nothing wrong at all on the male side. I then proceeded with my examination of the cistern supply in the laundry and kitchen, and that on the roof which furnished the kitchen and part of the laundry supply, when I came upon the source of the mischief; for, on lifting the lid of a large cistern there containing many gallons of water, my sense of smell was assailed by one of the most horrible odours I had ever encountered, and I saw a large mass of thick scum floating there which was evolving offensive gases and in constant motion from the activity of innumerable forms of the lowest type of animal life. I asked my friend to hand me up a stick, and with it I took out a large piece of it and spread it out upon the roof of the building. I also requested the Guardian to come up and judge for himself. I did this because I knew that any statement I might make would most assuredly be denied by the parties who are responsible for looking into and examining the condition of the cisterns and keeping them cleansed, a circumstance which, as I expected, did subsequently occur, but which could not be controverted by them as I had the gentleman in question as my witness.

Before leaving I left a written instruction that every cistern throughout the building should be emptied and disinfected, additional care to be taken with the offending one.

On my return home I drew up and forwarded to the Board my opinion as to the cause of the outbreak, and the orders I had given to the superintendent. As no other cases of fever occurred after my visit, it was clear I had discovered the cause and the remedy. The Board wrote me, through their clerk, a handsome acknowledgment of my success, and voted me five guineas for my visit, and informed me that they had directed the clerk to send a copy of my report and the results that had followed it to the Local Government Board. This was somewhat of a rebuke to those permanent officials who had placed that addendum to the letter directing me to resign my duties some six months before, as I had discovered and stopped the outbreak, the cause of which they had utterly failed to ascertain; but then these aforesaid permanent officials never throw any heart or intelligence into the work they are so handsomely paid to do.

In the early part of June the honorary secretary of the fund, Mr. J. W. Barnes, F.R.C.S., wrote to me, stating that it was decided to present a testimonial to me at a meeting of the subscribers, at the rooms of the Medical Society of London, in Chandos Street, Cavendish Square, in June, 1884, and that Mr. J. A. Shaw Stewart had arranged to take the chair. On the day mentioned the presentation took place, and subjoined is a condensed report of the proceedings extracted from The British Medical Journal, June 28, 1884. The assemblage was a very large one, and certainly was a striking manifestation of good feeling towards me from many of my old friends and fellow-workers in the cause of Sanitary and Poor Law Medical Reform.

RECOGNITION.

DR. JOSEPH ROGERS.

"To the Editor of The Lancet.

"Sir,—Since writing my letter to you last week I am rejoiced to see that a movement has commenced for giving shape to the esteem in which Dr. Joseph Rogers is held by his professional brethren and others who know his work. I hope a large sum will be raised, which cannot fail to be the case if all whom his labours have benefited give a little. And surely the time could not be more opportune than when in a battle with his persecutors: he wants to the full the encouragement of his friends. Only one suggestion I cannot agree with—viz., that the subscription list should be limited to Poor Law medical officers. Why? Truly, he has been a great benefactor to them; but not to them only. His public work has been much wider in aim and usefulness than simply to touch the pockets of a few Poor Law surgeons. Many years ago he was a leader in the movement that ended in stopping burials within towns. I believe I am right in saying that to his influence is largely due the establishment of mortuaries. It was he who succeeded in getting expensive medicines—which it was hopeless to expect the Poor Law officers to supply out of their slender salaries—supplied by Boards of Guardians: an improvement directly benefiting the poor, and indirectly the ratepayers. The Metropolitan Poor Act of 1867 was largely brought about by his untiring zeal. From that what good has not flowed? The supply of not expensive medicines only, but all medicines, by the Guardians. The dispensary system, leading to a very large increase, probably not less than £15,000 a year to the Metropolitan medical officers. Then that great boon, the Superannuation Act, is another monument of Dr. Rogers' energy. I do not wish to undervalue the labours of Dr. Brady, and our other friends in and out of the House of Commons; but Dr. Brady himself would be the foremost to admit that he never would have been able to carry the point had it not been for Dr. Rogers' assistance. 'Instant in season, out of season,' delivering addresses from town to town; giving advice and assistance to persecuted public servants all over the country; strengthening the hands of the weaker brethren in public and private, he has been for fourteen years a tower of strength to an important section of the community whose power for good has been enhanced by his agency, which has again reacted on the whole nation. In short, Dr. Rogers has been, and is, a great social reformer, and of his work all classes reap the fruit. But as a great American philosopher says, when the flat stone of a fine old abuse is overturned, there is a great squirming of the flat-patterned animals that have thriven in the darkness. Dr. Rogers has been turning over these stones for many years, and has been attacked by the squirming animals, as is usually the case. It is for those who have been cast in a different mould and can appreciate his valuable, arduous, and often thankless labours, to show their appreciation now.

"I am, Sir, yours respectfully, 
"James Milward, M.D.

"Cardiff,
     "October 22, 1883."

"To the Editor of The Lancet.

"Sir,—For a long series of years one man in the medical profession has boldly stood forward in maintaining the rights and in endeavouring by every legitimate means to redress the wrongs of the Poor Law medical officers of this country. As one unconnected entirely with Poor Law medical practice, I have, no doubt in common with a multitude of others, admired the courage and honesty with which this man, almost single-handed, has fought the battles of its medical officers. Had any one of them a real grievance or hardship to complain of, Dr. Rogers at once came to the front and became his champion. Now that he is, in his own person, the subject of an injustice, and a very serious one (for he is threatened with dismissal from his post as medical officer of the Westminster Union for doing that which in all honesty he felt compelled to do), it behoves the whole profession to give him all the moral support in its power. It cannot be possible that the Local Government Board will ever sanction such manifest injustice. But this is not purely a question between the Westminster Guardians and Dr. Rogers; but one which aims a blow at professional honour and rectitude, and if settled in the way in which the Guardians would have it, it may be the means of preventing some members of our body, however right-minded they may be, from giving evidence of wrong-doing, or performing other necessary duties not falling strictly within the scope of their ordinary work; because forsooth they may, if they do, find themselves stranded and deprived of their appointments.

"Let the profession, then, as a body, and not merely the Poor Law medical officers, rally round Dr. Rogers, and, whilst recognizing the benefits derived from his unselfish public labours in their behalf, labours which may have brought upon him much obliquy, and perhaps have had something to do with his present trial, present him with such a testimonial as shall effectually demonstrate to the Local Government Board its approval of his conduct and its disapprobation of the ungenerous treatment to which he has been subjected by the Westminster Guardians.

"I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
"William Webb, M.D., F.R.C.S.

"Wirksworth,
     "October 24, 1883."

"To the Editor of The Lancet.

"Sir,—Will you permit me to draw the attention of your readers to a movement which has been set on foot with the view of presenting to Dr. Joseph Rogers, the President of the Poor Law Medical Officers' Association, a testimonial, as a mark of the esteem in which he is held by Poor Law medical officers, and as a recognition of his unwearied advocacy of their claims, his fearless exposure of injustice done to them, and the able assistance and advice which he has freely given to such of them as have been unfortunate enough to be at variance with their Boards.

"The unjust treatment Dr. Rogers has received at the hands of the Westminster Guardians, will, I hope, shortly be brought before the Local Government Board. But I venture to suggest that no better time than the present could be chosen for his fellow-officers to express their sympathy with him, and that such an expression from a large number would show that they have appreciated his labours on their behalf; that in a good cause they are capable of acting in concert, and that they respect themselves and their office in manifesting respect for one who has fearlessly done his duty, although for doing it he has received the usual punishment accorded by Guardians to parochial medical officers.

"The following gentlemen have kindly promised to receive subscriptions, viz.:—Ernest Hart, Esq., Editor of The British Medical Journal; C. Frost, Esq. (Treasurer of the Poor Law Medical Officers' Association), 47, Ladbroke Square, Notting Hill, London; J. Wickham Barnes, Esq. (Secretary of the Poor Law Medical Officers' Association), 3, Bolt Court, Fleet Street, London.

"I am, Sir, yours faithfully, 
"Francis Whitwell.

"Shrewsbury,
     "October 23, 1883."

TESTIMONIAL TO DR. JOSEPH ROGERS.

The presentation of a handsome testimonial to Dr. Joseph Rogers, Chairman of the Poor Law Medical Officers' Association, took place on Tuesday last at the rooms of the Medical Society, Chandos Street, in the presence of a numerous gathering of ladies and gentlemen. Mr. John A. Shaw Stewart, presided.

Mr. J. Wickham Barnes (honorary secretary of the fund) spoke of the cordial reception with which the proposition to do honour to Dr. Rogers had been received, and the support which had been given to it by the medical journals, the editors of which had been among the most liberal contributors to the fund.

The Chairman, in his opening remarks, spoke of Dr. Rogers' work and worth, which were so well known that little further need be said on those points; but, on an occasion like the present, they should not forget that Dr. Rogers was a sanitary reformer and advocate of sanitation of about forty years' standing, and that matters which were now accepted as facts were then subjects of the fiercest controversy. Dr. Rogers, in conjunction with Mr. George Alfred Walker and others, was the first who successfully advocated the closing of the burial-grounds in cities, and had succeeded in establishing the first public mortuary in London. Those facts alone testified to his energy and ability. Those who were older than the speaker could remember the time when the light of heaven was taxed; and Dr. Rogers, with the late Lord Duncan, was one who worked hard to abolish the window-tax, a more unjust tax than which it was impossible to conceive. He was appointed medical officer of the Strand Union in 1856, at a time when there were no paid nurses and when the Poor Law officer had to pay out of his small salary for all medicines. Dr. Rogers, with Dr. Anstie, and Mr. Ernest Hart, was among the stoutest advocates for the improvement of the workhouse infirmaries; and, aided by the full force of the Medical Press, the great work was commenced. The first time he (the Chairman) had had the pleasure of working with ladies was in Mr. Ernest Hart's house; he was thankful that now, in all useful social work, ladies came to the front. Dr. Rogers' work led up to Mr. Gathorne Hardy's Act, and his force and determination prevailed so far that the more expensive medicines were henceforth to be paid for by the Guardians, but for a long time the bulk of the drugs supplied was still left as a charge upon the ill-paid medical officer. Dr. Rogers' great and difficult work had been in connection with Poor Law administration. He believed one of the greatest political economists of the day, whom he saw present, would bear him out that political economy and philanthropy went hand in hand when they were employed in energetic and persistent endeavours to arrest disease in its earliest stages. No one could go much about our general hospitals without seeing how much of the misery and distress of this world were caused by disease. We were subject to a variety of diseases—and diseases meant loss of health, and ultimate loss of life, to the bread-winner, and his widow and children to be cast on the world. Dr. Rogers was subsequently very instrumental in the carrying of the Bill for the superannuation of Poor Law medical officers. Since then he had visited almost every large town in England, Scotland, and Ireland, with the view of prevailing upon the authorities to carry out improvements lately talked of in the metropolis. Dr. Rogers was a real, true specimen of the best sort of Englishmen, a man of tenacity, a hard hitter, a staunch friend, and a pertinacious foe.

Mr. G. W. Fraser, Chairman of the Westminster Board of Guardians, said he had long known Dr. Rogers, and it afforded him very great pleasure to find that he was so much respected by those who had had an opportunity of appreciating his valuable work, and the many reforms he had been instrumental in effecting in the Poor Law of this country. He was very much respected by the Board of Guardians of the Westminster Union as at present constituted, and before, until he had to draw the attention of the Guardians to matters affecting the internal welfare of the Workhouse, which action resulted in his being suspended from his duties. All he could say was, there was no logical ground for the course that had been taken. It was a great satisfaction to find that that apparent evil had resulted in some good, for Mr. Wickham Barnes had told them that the treatment which Dr. Rogers then received was instrumental in bringing about the crowning result to be achieved in the presentation of the testimonial that day. Dr. Rogers had, on several occasions, rendered very valuable services to him (Mr. Fraser) and his colleagues, and he trusted that he might long he spared to fulfil the duties he had hitherto so long and so satisfactorily discharged.

Professor L. E. Thorold Rogers, M.P., said it was a matter of great gratification to him to be present on an occasion when the merits of his brother's labours were being recognized with so much unanimity, and in so practical a form, by the profession to which he belonged, and which, he ventured to say, he had always adorned.

Mr. Samuel Bonsor, as an old Westminster Guardian, spoke of the pleasure it was to him that he had lived long enough to see Dr. Rogers' efforts recognized as they had been.

Dr. Farquharson, M.P., said he knew that Dr. Rogers had been a great sanitary reformer, but he was astonished to find that he had been a reformer of so many years' standing. Guardians were apt to go for a hard and fast rule, while medical men, on the other hand, held more towards the sympathetic side; and it was by carrying out their duties in a sympathetic and liberal spirit that medical men often got into great disputes, and great difficulty and trouble. Until recently, these gentlemen, who were often treated cruelly, had no organization or means by which they could make their grievances known, or obtain any redress whatever. The action of Dr. Rogers, and the Association which he had been instrumental in forming, had been the means of often bringing to light cases of oppression and of obtaining redress for those who had been oppressed. He was sure they might all congratulate Dr. Rogers on being present, not only from the fact that he was going to receive a substantial token of the affection and respect in which he was held by all who knew him, but on the expressions of admiration and esteem which poured in from all directions on that occasion. He hoped Dr. Rogers would long be spared to give them the benefit of the shrewdness, his tenacity, and his tact.

Canon Wade (Rector of St. Anne's, Soho), said he had known Dr. Rogers for some years as a man of war. The first thing which drew forth his kindly feeling towards Dr. Rogers was observing the tender and faithful manner in which he supported the case of the sick poor in their workhouses.

The Rev. W. Benham said he thought he had known Dr. Rogers and his family longer than any one else in the room, excepting his brother, and if he was a man of war, as had been stated, it was because no man in the world had a more kindly heart.

The Chairman, in making the presentation to Dr. Rogers of three handsome pieces of silver plate in a case, together with a cheque for £150, said he really ought to have the assistance of a lady now, for she would so much more gracefully, in their name, present that testimonial to Dr. Rogers. The inscription ran: "Presented to Dr. Joseph Rogers, in recognition of his continuous effort in the cause of sanitary and Poor Law medical reform, for nearly forty years. June 24, 1884." The date reminded them that Dr. Rogers' voice had not been that of one crying in the wilderness; his voice had been most usefully and beneficially exercised in the metropolis. With the pieces of plate there was a substantial lining. They hoped that Dr. and Mrs. Rogers would long be spared to enjoy very many blessings. They had met together there with one heart and one mind, to show their appreciation of his excellent qualities both as a public and as a private man. The estimate of his good deeds, he (the Chairman) fully believed, would never be known till that last day, when the record of his life would be unrolled. They had met to do honour to a good man; let each in his own capacity strive to follow so noble an example, that when that great day came they might have more to record of work done for others and less for themselves.

Dr. Rogers, who spoke with some emotion, said he felt much difficulty in giving expression to the feelings that actuated him on that occasion; all he would state was that, in his progress through life, if he had recognized an evil, he had done his best to relieve it; and if in the doing of it, he had occasionally—and doubtless he had—confronted the prejudices of some and aroused the antagonism of others, it was the inevitable fate of all who attempted to deal determinedly with wrong-doing, wherever it might exist. He happened to be, as it were, a child of the new Poor Law, because he remembered well when the Bill became law, and his father expressed to him his sense of deep disappointment and dissatisfaction, as a Christian man, with the way in which the Bill was framed, in regard to its harsh and bitter spirit. They must recognize the fact that the poor would be with us always; and that it was best to deal with them in a spirit of conciliation, moderation, and kindness, and especially in that particular branch of the management of the poor with which it had been his lot for many years to be associated, namely, as medical officer of a large metropolitan workhouse. He was perfectly satisfied of one thing, and that was that a judicious administration of Poor Law relief meant economy. He had studied this question most minutely. He pointed out, twenty-three years ago, to Mr. Charles Villiers, who presided over a committee on poor relief in 1861, that a more liberal administration of poor relief meant true economy to the ratepayers, because if they cut short the sickness of the poor, and if they diminished the amount of deaths that took place among the bread-winners, they would, as the ultimate result, economize expenditure and out-relief. As regarded other subjects that had been referred to, it was to him a matter of immense gratification that he had been associated in those labours that took place about forty-four years ago, initiated by Mr. George Alfred Walker, of Drury Lane, and which eventually germinated in the abolition of the most horrible system that ever took place in a Christian kingdom. He could tell them many things, terribly showing the horrible evils that arose from keeping the bodies of the dead in the single rooms of the living. He had many times seen the widowed mother and the children dining off the coffin of the dead father, and other scenes which were indescribable in a gathering like that before him. This it was which had prompted his action in the formation of a mortuary at St. Anne's. Dr. Rogers concluded by offering his sincere thanks for the great honour they had conferred on him, and to Mr. Shaw Stewart in coming and speaking so kindly of him as he had done.

Mr. Wickham Barnes proposed a vote of thanks to the Chairman, which was seconded by Mr. James Hogg, and to which the Chairman briefly replied.

CONCLUSION.

Though there were several persons of both sexes who were very advanced in years, when one takes into account the difference in the numbers that were to be found in the Strand and Westminster Workhouses, yet in this latter House I did not see so many interesting old people as were to be found in the former. About ten years ago, however, there was an admission from St. Anne's, Soho, of an extremely aged woman. She claimed then to be one hundred years old. She must have been extremely good-looking in her youth, as she still retained evidences of personal beauty. Like my old friend in the Strand, she had a bright blue eye and a fair complexion; she was in possession of all her faculties, and talked and laughed by the half-hour together when I was in the humour to sit and chat with her. She knew the younger Pitt intimately, Charles James Fox, the Prince Regent, Edmund Burke, and several of the politicians of the latter part of the last century. She also told me she knew Wellington and Nelson. At last I discovered what she had been. Her constant references to Sheridan in her conversations with me induced me one day to ask her if she knew him. Drawing herself up in a sprightly sort of fashion, "I rather think I did," said she. Eventually it came out that she had been under the protection of the box-keeper of Drury Lane Theatre. On putting the question which brought out the somewhat equivocal relation in which she had lived during the latter part of the last century, she blushed up to her eyes—the only thing of the kind I ever witnessed in a lady of such advanced years, so much so that I felt sorry I had elicited the confession from her. She was a very interesting old woman, and her remarks about the appearance of the celebrities of the latter end of the last century and beginning of this, unmistakably showed that she had associated on familiar terms with many of the celebrated persons who lived and moved and produced a sensation nearly a hundred years ago. She used to sing some very good songs; they were chiefly Scotch, and when singing them she would work herself up into a great state of excitement. She was very fond of talking to me, and I suppose this arose from the circumstance of my taking interest in her conversation. She was a very well-behaved old woman, and therefore a great favourite with the inmates and nurses, who were highly amused whenever they could get her to sing one of her Scotch songs. At the latter end of the last century and the beginning of the present, she had accompanied her male friend through Portugal and Spain prior to the war; at the same time she knew Lord Nelson and Wellington before their names had become famous. When she had reached 104, she rather suddenly lost her vivacity, became childish, and insensibly passed from time into eternity.

We had, during the portion of the time I was at the Westminster Union, quite a little community of aged and, so far as I could ascertain, religious women, at any rate they struck me as being such, and I kept them together until the harmony of their daily life was rudely interfered with by the master and matron, Mr. John Bliss and Miss Heatley, neither of whom had any sympathy with, or kindly feeling for, decently conducted pauper women. Indeed they rendered the lives of these people so wretched by harsh interference, as to compel me to distribute them among other wards; some of them I even sent away to the sick asylum hospitals, so as to get them out of their way. It was a wonder to me that Miss Heatley, after all that was proved against her on the official inquiry, should ever have been allowed to continue matron of the Workhouse; but though spared by man's power, she was destined to perish by one of the most fearful diseases that can afflict any woman, being destined to die of cancer of a certain internal organ, and I have been told her sufferings were of the acutest possible character. It is very remarkable that, having had very large opportunities of witnessing the deaths of my fellow-creatures, I have constantly observed that some untimely fate has overtaken those who, exercising power in a workhouse, have exhibited a cruel use of that power; and of one thing I am absolutely certain from personal observation, repeated over and over again, that, "Blessed is he who considereth the poor and needy, the Lord shall deliver him in the time of trouble." It has often been asserted that the inmates of a workhouse are generally worthless people, but I demur to that conclusion entirely. Of this I am certain, that many a person who has died in the infirmary of the sick ward of a workhouse has gone as straight to Abraham's bosom as has ever passed from a bishop's palace, or the death-chamber of a king or queen, or however highly placed. During the thirty years that I was engaged in waiting on the sick poor, I never lost sight of the fact that they were my fellow-creatures who were accidentally placed in a humbler social position than myself. Though, in accordance with the custom adopted in the institution, they were stigmatized as paupers, I never allowed myself to make them feel I thought them such. After the departure of Mr. John Bliss and the disappearance (through illness) of Miss Heatley, the Guardians appointed as master and matron, Mr. and Mrs. Minter. I found them to be exceedingly respectable people, kind to the old and afflicted, and fair and kind to the general population of an urban workhouse. The sick poor were quietly attended to, whilst loud-mouthed swearing and blasphemy were banished from the place. Unfortunately, however, I began to break in health. Mounting up staircases day after day, which had gone on for nearly forty years, told upon me, aggravated as it was by repeated attacks of bronchitis. Then a heart affection, followed by its usual concomitants, proved too much for me, and I was compelled to resign the work I had done for so many years. What made the blow the greater to me was this, that in all other respects my professional life was a happy one. I had nothing to ask for from the Board of Guardians, as all my legitimate requirements were at once courteously met and complied with; a different atmosphere pervaded the establishment, and therefore it was a pleasure to me to meet my fellow-officers and to work with them. Looking back upon the change which had taken place from the day I first entered upon my duties in January, 1856, in the Old Strand Workhouse, till I finally left the Westminster Union in 1886, a period of thirty years, the change that occurred was enormous. Then there was hardly a paid nurse in any workhouse in London, the duties being performed by more or less infirm, drunken, and generally profligate inmates of the House. It was a miracle to find an honest one among them; they were a chance medley of Sairey Gamps and Betsy Prigs, who were selected at the will of master and matron, and who obeyed the orders of the medical officer just as much as, and no more than, their fancy led them. The scenes of untold misery which might have been witnessed by the Guardians of the Poor will never be fully exposed until the grave record of all things is opened to universal gaze. Fortunately, a change has come over the spirit of these things: in the present day the sick poor are housed in buildings which were never dreamed of twenty years ago; pauper nursing is now entirely a thing of the past; Lazarus now meets with careful, Christian consideration, and if it be possible to restore him to health, an opportunity is afforded him of resuming a position in society, useful, though it maybe humble. My readers will therefore fully understand with what great regret I took my pen and wrote the resignation of my office, especially when I recall to mind my having been twice suspended from my duties for the efforts I had made in bringing about the changes which I have above referred to, and that at last, when I was no longer able to do my work, I was constrained to sever my connection with the Board who had come to look upon me as one solely actuated by a sense of duty.

The day after the receipt of my resignation, I received the following—

"Westminster Union, 
"Poland Street, 
"September 27, 1886.

"Dear Sir,—I am directed to forward you the annexed copy of a Resolution adopted by the Guardians at their meeting held on Friday last, when your resignation of the offices of Workhouse Medical Officer and Public Vaccinator of the Union was accepted.

"I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, 
"Fred J. Lampard, 
"Assistant Clerk of the Guardians.

"J. Rogers, Esq., M.D.,
     "Montagu Place, Russell Square."

(Copy Resolution.)

"That this Board has received with much regret the letter just read from Dr. Joseph Rogers, resigning the office of Workhouse Medical Officer and Public Vaccinator for the Union, on account of his continued ill-health, and while now accepting such resignation, the Guardians desire to convey to him their deep sympathy that he should thus be compelled to sever his connection with the Board after many years of faithful service, and to record their high sense of the zealous and efficient manner in which he has discharged the duties of his office, and for the warm interest he has at all times taken in questions affecting the proper treatment of the sick and infirm poor."

After the resolution had been submitted to the vote and adopted unanimously, Mr. Samuel Bonsor rose in his seat and gave notice that that day month superannuation allowance should be accorded to Dr. Joseph Rogers. Coming from this gentleman it was indeed an honourable recognition of lengthened public services. Mr. Bonsor had been in various offices of the parish of St. Anne's, Soho, since the introduction of the new Poor Law Bill in 1834. He had filled all the usual parochial offices, even the highest, up to the time when I first made his acquaintance, which was in the autumn of 1846, on the occasion when I brought before the Vestry of St. Anne's, Soho, the terrible condition of the burial-ground of that parish. After hearing my indictment he at once concurred in the appointment of a committee from the Vestry, of the inhabitants, to take the condition of the ground into consideration, and to devise such remedies as might appear desirable. Mr. Bonsor attended several of our meetings, and entirely agreed as to the dreadful state into which the graveyard had fallen, owing to the frequent funerals and the enormous overcrowding. It was that Vestry meeting that first made me a sanitary reformer, and caused me to advocate extra-mural interment as well as many other social reforms, in all of which I had the hearty support of Mr. Bonsor. I question whether a finer representative of a middle-class tradesman could be found in this kingdom; for more than half a century he has devoted more than ordinary ability to the interests of his fellow-parishioners. I never upon one single occasion heard, or was it ever hinted by any enemy (if he ever made one, which I doubt), that his actions were ever influenced by a single act of self-seeking; indeed, he has passed through an unusually prolonged life amidst the respect and regard of all who have come in contact with him. A very short time ago he brought me a circular letter, issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, proposing the Board of Guardians in London should issue a similar letter to their respective bodies, so as to more effectually deal with casuals. Laying it down before me, he said, "This is a return to what they did between forty and fifty years ago, for I was a member of the special Board which was appointed under this letter; but," said he, "I suppose they have forgotten all about it." And so they had, no doubt.

Before bringing my remarks to a close, I should like to briefly describe the various changes that have taken place since the Poor Law Commission was appointed in 1832. One of the original Commissioners was the Right Hon. C. P. Villiers, M.P. for Wolverhampton, who has told me in the course of various conversations I have had with him, that although a variety of subjects was referred to them in connection with the administration of the Poor Laws, yet that the question of sickness, as a factor in the production of pauperism was not referred to them, and if it had not been for the pertinacity of Dr. G. Wallis and some others, that this important subject would have been passed over altogether. It need not, therefore, be a matter of surprise that there has been a continual protest going on, on the part of those who have accepted Poor Law medical appointments against the way in which they have been treated by the Board of Guardians, and a reference to the Poor Law Commissioners resulting in the various changes that have taken place in the composition of the central authority up to the Local Government Board of the present day. Until 1864 the central authority was an extremely weak body, as continuous efforts were made throughout the country by Boards of Guardians and others to wipe the Poor Law Board out of existence altogether, and had it not have happened that the investigations and deliberations of the Select Committee on Poor Relief, presided over by the Right Hon. C. P. Villiers, had reported in favour of the maintenance of the Poor Law Board—not Local Government Board—such a disastrous thing would have happened. Let it here be fully understood that although I have taken a most determined antagonism to many of the acts of the Board, whether as Commissioners or as the Poor Law Board, yet that antagonism has been due to the fact that the administration has often been seriously faulty in detail. The office of a Poor Law Inspector is one which needs much judgment and tact. I trust this will be borne in mind by those who will draft the contemplated County Government Board. There is one point on which, feeling most strongly the existing mockery of so-called Poor Law inquiries, I do trust a change will be insisted upon, and that is, that those deputed to make the inquiry shall possess at least a modicum of legal intelligence. Finally, I have to express the hope that no Inspector, whether metropolitan or otherwise, will be vested with the sole power of deciding what shall be the evidence that shall be taken when the inquiry shall close, nor that he shall be the sole judge of the value of such evidence.

UNWIN BROTHERS, THE GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND LONDON.