Chapter II: The Westminster Infirmary (4)

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.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The attacks upon me were so scurrilous for the evidence I had given that I wrote as follows to the editor of _The Lancet_, the staff there being divided in opinion whether I should be supported or condemned--

"REGINA _v._ WATSON.

"TO THE EDITOR OF _The Lancet_.

"SIR,--As I have been made to occupy, through the exceptionally
severe and not over-courteous cross-examination at the Old Bailey,
a more conspicuous position than I had desired before the public,
perhaps you will permit me to give the reasons why I held, and do
hold, that the prisoner in the above case was, and is, of unsound
mind; and, subsequently, to briefly comment on each head.

"1st. There were the evidences of pre-existent melancholia.

"2nd. The ferocity with which the deed was committed.

"3rd. The total absence of criminal motive.

"4th. The calmness and indifference of the prisoner's manner after
the deed was done.

"5th. His justification of suicide, and the expression of his
belief that God would forgive the homicide under the circumstances.

"First, as regards the proofs of mental disease prior to the
act--they were deposed to by the Rev. Folliott Baugh and his wife
as existing a month before the murder; by Mr. H. Rogers on the
preceding day; whilst further evidence on this head, not available
for the defence owing to the sickness of the deponent, has since
been forwarded to the Home Secretary, the statement being that some
months before he was in communication with the prisoner for the
purpose of employing him in his school, but on an interview he
found his mental condition to be such that he at once broke off the
engagement: the evidences of aging and altered aspect deposed to by
the secretary of the school a short while after his dismissal. And
mark, that to him was no ordinary event: at sixty-seven he found
himself suddenly without employment, without any realized money,
absolute penury in the not distant prospective, whilst, during the
nine months he had been thus thrown in upon himself, every attempt
to add to his means or to obtain an engagement, whether literary or
scholastic, had entirely failed.

"Second. Passing to my next point, the ferocity of the act, it was
argued by the prosecution that it was done in a fit of rage; but,
for the credit of our common human nature, I would ask, Is it
conceivable that mere anger would so transform a mild, quiet old
gentleman, as he was shown to be, into such a brutal criminal, so
that, not content with slaying his victim, he should go on
battering her head and body long after passion alone would have
been exhausted? It is, I contend, explicable only as the act of a
homicidal melancholic, not otherwise.

"Third. The senseless character of the deed. If done consciously
and by premeditation, as the verdict would suppose, I would ask,
Where could be the gain? Here, again, I argue that the act itself,
done without reasonable motive, could only be the product of reason
overthrown.

"Fourth. The indifference, &c. Here I would submit--can a parallel
be produced from criminal records in any place (Broadmoor excepted)
for the remarkable calmness (self-possession Mr. Gibson, of
Newgate, phrases it) Mr. Watson maintains whenever the act is
referred to, such as to lead his old friend, the Rev. J. Wallis, to
state that he seemed perfectly void of shame and remorse; nay,
asserting that he was an injured person by being put in prison'?

"Fifth. His justification of suicide, &c. I may here be met by the
remark that he is probably an unbeliever in the Christianity he
professed. To this I make reply that there is not a tittle of
evidence to show that such is the case. Until the act was done, a
regular attendant at church, a constant communicant, his whole
moral nature must have become utterly changed and corrupt ere such
a consummation could be arrived at, standing out, as it does, in
direct antagonism to his previous life, as portrayed by one who
knew him well and gives his opinion of his old friend in this day's
_Times_.

"I pass over the subsequent blundering attempts to hide the act, as
similar things have been done by others whose insanity has not been
questioned. And as I have occupied much of your space, I subscribe
myself,

"Yours obediently,

"JOS. ROGERS.

"DEAN STREET, SOHO,

"_January 15, 1872_."

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 L15,000 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.

"'He's true to God who's true to man wherever wrong is done,
To the humblest or the weakest 'neath the all-beholding sun.
That wrong is also done to us, and they are slaves most base,
Whose love of right is for themselves and not for all the race.'

"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 L150, 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.