At the conclusion of our examination, which lasted nearly three hours,

we returned to my room, where the master promptly joined us. On seeing

him Dr. Mouatt asked that the matron should be sent for. On her arrival

he addressed them both as follows: "I have been over the sick wards and

have seen all the sick that should be sent away and taken the number;

this I shall report to the Local Government Board. I see that your House

is kept clean and in good order, but there is one thing I notice which

must at once be altered, and that is, the large number of patients

sitting up in bed without anything over their shoulders. I have called

Dr. Rogers' attention to it, and he tells me that the Board gave an

order three months ago for jackets and shawls to be provided, but that

they have never been supplied." Both immediately began to throw the

blame on the contractor, but he cut them short by stating, "That excuse,

master and matron, will not do for me; you know as well as I do you

could have got them if you had chosen. I shall report the omission to

supply them to the Board of Guardians and also to the Local Government

Board." On hearing this they were dreadfully put out, and expressed an

earnest hope that, as it was not their fault, he would not be so severe.

"Well," he said, "I shall request the medical officer to report to me

when they are supplied, and if every person needing them is not

furnished with them before the end of the week, I shall carry out what I

have said." By the following Wednesday all my patients were provided

with them. At his death the master left some £4,000, notwithstanding he

had a large and expensive family. After his decease I learned that he

had signed a quantity of blank orders for my attendance, and had given

them to the porter with the instructions that if any person was admitted

who either looked ill or complained of being so, he was at once to send

for me. His death led to the diminution of second calls by at least

two-thirds. He was nearly always out in the after-part of the day. For

several weeks after his death the duties of master were performed by the

labour master. At last the Board advertised for a master and matron, the

appointment of matron having come to an end when the late master died.

As the Guardians were fully alive to the bad discipline which had

prevailed for so many years, they resolved to appoint two officers who

should more strictly exercise their authority. The choice of the Board

fell upon Mr. John Bliss, a corporal-major of the Life Guards, and a

Miss Heatley, lately assistant matron of the Manchester Workhouse. Both

of these officers were strict disciplinarians, and something besides, as

the sequel will show. For the first two or three years, indeed, during

the whole Chairmanship of Mr. Cooper, the surgeon, they were kept in

their places and behaved fairly well, but unfortunately for them, for

the inmates, and the Board, Mr. Cooper was taken ill and died, and

another Chairman being elected, serious results soon followed, for this

Chairman was always in the House, and when so was constantly closeted

with the master and matron in their rooms. Speedily after that the

master began to dispute my orders, and the matron did the same, and as

the Chairman again began to obstruct my sending the acutely sick inmates

away to the Sick Asylum, the House became full of sick people, who were

detained in it through the restrictions put in my way. At last the

obstruction to the performance of my duty, by both master and matron,

became almost unbearable, especially as Mr. Bliss thought fit to

accompany his refusals by telling me to go to h--l, and sundry other

coarse and blasphemous expressions; and to such an extent was it

carried, that I felt I could not put up with it. To complain to the

Board would have been perfectly futile, the majority would most

assuredly have gone against me. At last the loud-mouthed, coarse, and

outrageous blasphemy of the master quite appalled me; and this, coupled

with his refusal to obey my orders and his general interference with me

in my treatment of the sick, by deriding my judgment and by openly

stating that I did not know my profession, caused me to speak to Mr.

Fraser, a Guardian, in reference to the annoyance I was being daily

subjected to. He advised that I should go to the Local Government Board

and confer with the Poor Law Inspector. I did so, but got very little

encouragement by my action. Some time after, in a letter to the

Department, I did not hesitate to refer to it, and state as much. One

result, however, accrued from this visit, which I foresaw was in the

near future imminent, and I accordingly took steps forthwith to get some

influence in the House of Commons so as to secure a proper inquiry. On

my return I again saw Mr. Fraser, and told him of the way I had been

treated. Just about this time this Guardian came into collision with Mr.

Bliss. It happened in this way: there was a lady living on Wandsworth

Common, the wife of the chaplain of a public institution, and, being

very benevolent, she had constantly visited the Union school, and had

interested herself in the future welfare of the girls. A girl she was

much interested in had gone to a situation some months before, and, not

being kindly treated, had left and returned to the Workhouse, when she

wrote to this lady, who at once came up to the House to see her and some

other girl. The master refused to allow her to do so, whereupon she went

round to Soho Square and saw Mr. Fraser, whom she had known as a

Guardian, and told how she had been treated, whereupon he wrote to the

master, stating who the lady was, and asking him to allow her to see the

girls. The master read the letter and replied, with a coarse oath, "I

have already told you you shall not see the girls, and you shall not."

On reporting this conduct to Mr. Fraser, he was much incensed, and at

the next meeting of the Board brought the master's behaviour before the

Guardians. To his astonishment, the majority of the Guardians absolutely

howled him down. Mr. Fraser then formulated a series of charges against

Mr. Bliss, among them his constant refusal to obey my orders, his

swearing and generally violent treatment of the inmates, and moved that

these charges should be sent to the Local Government Board, and an

inquiry into the master's conduct asked for. This proposition was

rejected, but, at the suggestion of the Chairman, it was resolved that

the Board would conduct an inquiry themselves. This was done evidently

with the intention that the whole matter as against the master should be

quashed. The inquiry was held, and I was ordered by the Board to attend.

At the inquiry by the Guardians the Chairman presided, and proceeded to

ask questions; but finding he was no match for the solicitor, Baron H.

de Worms, an _ex-officio_ guardian, put in an appearance and conducted

the inquiry for them, and as I declined to recognize his or the Board's

right to put questions to me, the Baron threatened to report my

behaviour to the Local Government Board. I said to him, however, that if

it were a regular legal inquiry, conducted by a properly constituted

authority, I would answer on oath, and prove all the charges I had ever

made against the master and matron. One of my charges was that I had

discovered that my Medical Relief Book had been tampered with, and that

entries for wines and spirits, neither ordered by me or given to the

sick, had been placed against certain names. When this was gone into by

the Baron the master's clerk was sent for and insolently denied the

allegation.

The Guardians completely exonerated the master and matron, his clerk,

and all concerned with them; but the matter did not end there. During

the progress of this so-called inquiry the matron brought before the

Guardians eight of the very worst characters in the House, in order to

depose to her and the master's continuous kindness and consideration to

all the inmates, and that Mr. Bliss never swore at all. After they had

given their evidence they were entertained by the matron in the

store-room, a hot supper and brandy-and-water being provided. As she

knew I was keeping a sharp look-out on my books to prevent any

additional frauds, the next morning she was at her wits' end to make up

the deficiency in the brandy, but at last she managed it by adding some

water; but in her hurry she forgot to add clean water. She put what she

wanted to increase the quantity into a jug which had contained milk, and

so gave a cloudy appearance to the whole of it. On my arrival at the

House I was informed of the entertainment that had been given to these

witnesses to character, and on going into the women's sick ward, the

head nurse showed me the brandy which had been tampered with, and I was

further told by her that the brandy given out on the male side had the

same appearance--indeed, that the nurse on that side had just called her

attention to it. I directed that she should carry it down into my room.

On going through to the male side, I requested the nurse to show me her

brandy. At first she objected to do so, but on my insisting she

reluctantly did so, when I took it away. On reaching my room I sent for

a large bottle and mixed it all together and sealed down the cork. I

then wrote to the contractors, Messrs. Hedges and Butler, of Regent

Street, and asked them to examine it and write me word whether the

brandy sent was the same as that supplied by them under the contract. It

was taken by one of the officers. In the course of an hour he came back

with the brandy and a statement from the firm proving that it had been

lowered by the addition of so much water, and that the water that had

been used was not clean. I then wrote to the Board giving the history

now related, and enclosed Messrs. Hedges and Butler's certificate. I

wrapped all up together in a piece of brown paper and addressed it to

the Board of Guardians. I called the clerk into my room and having in

his presence sealed up the parcel, I requested him to take charge of it

and not to let it go out of his hands until the Board met. I then

ordered a fresh supply for my sick. I had hardly left the House when the

Chairman came, and, going to the clerk, demanded to see the parcel. The

clerk gave it to him, when he immediately broke it open and read my

letter and the spirit-merchant's certificate. Of course his supporters

passed over this abominable transaction when the subject was brought

before the Board, and the matron was not even censured; at least, so I

was told.

There was, however, a Nemesis. Just as they were rejoicing at the

success of their proceedings a letter was on its way to the clerk from

the Local Government Board, stating that, in consequence of certain

information having been sent to the Department, an official inquiry into

the master's management of the House had been determined on, and that

Mr. Robert Hedley had been directed to hold it. I immediately went down

to the House of Commons, saw some Members, and begged that they would

see Sir Charles Dilke, who was then the President, and ask him to send

some other Inspector instead. A day or so afterwards I heard that as his

name had been mentioned it could not be changed, but that another

Inspector, Mr. Taylor, a barrister-at-law, would be appointed with him

in the inquiry.

In due course the inquiry took place, Mr. Robert Hedley presiding, Mr.

Taylor sitting on his right, Mr. Fraser, the solicitor, one of the

Guardians, on the left. Mr. Fraser conducted the proceedings against the

master, who was defended by Mr. Ricketts. The proceedings lasted several

days. During the progress of the inquiry Mr. Hedley rendered no

assistance whatever, and if it had not been for the conscientious

conduct of Mr. Taylor, not one-half of the evidence which was given

would have been brought out. Nearly all the evidence which was tendered

was voluntary--that is, inmates and officers came forward to testify to

Mr. Bliss's continual refusal to comply with my orders, to his swearing

at me and the inmates, and his general harshness and positive cruelty to

many of them. When the master's clerk was examined, he swore that he had

never made false entries in my Medical Relief Book; but when my

attendant, who had assisted in making up the book, gave evidence and

stated that he had seen him make them, his tone altered, and eventually

he confessed to sixty-three fraudulent entries of wines and spirits,

amounting in the whole to a very considerable quantity of stimulants,

presumably supplied to my sick but in reality consumed by other people.

When called as a witness, I deposed to the continued refusal of Mr.

Bliss to comply with my orders, as to his swearing at me and at others,

and to the fact that he derided my judgment, and had intimated to the

sick inmates under my charge his disbelief in my knowledge of my

profession, &c.

When Bliss was called on for his defence he contented himself with

giving a general denial to everything that had been given in evidence

against him. At last Mr. Hedley said that he should close the inquiry. I

do not know whether at that time he had communicated to Mr. Bliss that

he intended to report in his favour, but I had a suspicion of it, as no

one could possibly be in better spirits than Mr. Bliss was that day, and

it was clear from Mr. Hedley's manner and Mr. Bliss's familiarity with

the Inspector what his decision would be.

I was therefore not surprised on going down to the House some three

weeks after to make some inquiries that certain Members, whose names I

am precluded even now from mentioning, informed me confidentially that

it had oozed out that Mr. Hedley and the other Inspector had recommended

to the President that Mr. Bliss should be allowed to remain as master.

On my expressing my astonishment at such a monstrous decision, I was

informed that, to a great extent, the President was powerless in such

matters--that, having appointed an Inspector to conduct an inquiry, he

was by the rules of the Department bound by his decision, and that if he

made a report in favour of the individual into whose management he was

deputed to inquire, and reported favourably or the reverse of that, the

President was compelled to accept it, however much he felt that the

evidence did not support the view taken by the Inspectors.

I lay stress upon this assumption that Inspectors cannot by any

possibility err in their judgment, or be guilty of favouritism in their

conduct of such inquiries, because ere long, if we are to have County

Government Boards, the obligations of these Inspectors will be largely

increased, and if the official inquiries of the future are to be

conducted by men such as I have had experience of, Heaven help the

unfortunate officials whose actions are being inquired into, unless

there are some special reasons why they should be officially befriended,

such as evidently held good in Mr. John Bliss's case.

Having regard to the fate that always attends crooked courses, I am very

much disposed to think that a different line would have been followed

could it have been foreseen that Mr. Bliss would have acted as he did

three weeks after the inquiry was ended, when a woman was brought in a

cab so very ill that I decided to send her away forthwith to the Asylum

Hospital; but, as she was blue in the face from difficulty of breathing

and from general exhaustion, I told the receiving wards woman to come

into my room, and then gave her a written order for some brandy and

beef-tea to be given to the woman before she went away. I addressed the

order to the matron. Shortly afterwards the nurse came back and told me

that this woman had refused to supply what I had ordered. I then said,

"Take the order to the master." After a minute or so she returned,

telling me that the master would see me d----d before the woman should

have it. I then left the House, and on the next day heard that,

exhausted as she was, the woman was taken to Cleveland Street without

anything being given to her. That morning I wrote to the medical

superintendent of the Sick Asylum, and asked him to let me have a copy

of any remarks he had made on her admission (of course, stating the

refusal of both master and matron to give her anything at all before she

left the Westminster Workhouse). His reply bore out the view I had

formed of her condition, and he further said that if I had not written

to him he should have made a special report to the managers showing her

exhausted condition when admitted. A copy of this letter and a formal

complaint against the matron and Bliss for their refusal to give the

poor woman anything, was sent to the Board of Guardians, who simply

ignored it. I also sent a similar statement to the Local Government

Board, but no acknowledgment of its ever having been received was sent

to me. Knowing what I do, from many years' experience, what this

Department is, I very much regret that I did not send this complaint

under cover (privately) to Sir Charles Dilke. It is a curious fact that,

although the suppression of my statement at the Local Government Board,

and the refusal of the Chairman and his party to make any inquiry into

my complaint caused Mr. Bliss to keep his appointment a twelvemonth

longer, yet this refusal, having been subsequently conclusively proved,

ultimately led to his being called on to resign his appointment, as will

be shown hereafter, after the Chairman had in the interval been ejected

from office by an overwhelming vote of the indignant ratepayers.

No report of the inquiry having been forwarded to the Board, the

Chairman, after the lapse of about three months, caused a letter to be

written to the Local Government Board asking that the result of the

inquiry should be forwarded. The President sent a copy of the evidence

given on oath to the Guardians, thinking that after the Board had read

it through they would surely concur with him in thinking that Mr. Bliss

was not a fit person to remain as master. But he reckoned wrongly. Sir

Charles Dilke did not know the Chairman. This man simply induced his

dozen followers to utterly ignore all the evidence, and to assert that

it proved nothing.

Meeting one of these Guardians in the House two or three mornings after,

he came up to me, and, in a loud tone of voice, he said, "I have been

reading your disgraceful evidence against our master." To which I

quietly replied, "It was given on oath, and every word of it is true;"

when, in a towering passion, he said, "You have disgraced yourself, I

tell you; you have disgraced yourself:" and then, before I could reply

to this outburst of vulgar vituperation, he went on to say, "I see the

Local Government Board have directed us to pay you five guineas for your

attending to give evidence: I am the Chairman of the Board, and not one

penny shall you ever be paid for your disgraceful evidence." Had this

outburst been indulged in some few years before I cannot answer for the

form which my resentment would have taken; but I kept my temper, as I

knew no credit could accrue from any squabble with this man. The cheque

was subsequently paid. The Chairman was far too wise to enter into a

struggle with the Local Government Board over such a matter.

At the next meeting of the Board of Guardians he, or one of his

followers, moved that a letter be written to the Local Government Board,

stating that they had considered the evidence and were of opinion that

it in no way affected the character of their master, and requesting that

the Board should forthwith send its opinion of the evidence and what

charges they considered proved, whereupon there was forwarded to them a

list of thirteen charges which the Local Government Board held had been

proved against Bliss. It is probable that if the Chairman and the

majority had remained quiet, these serious charges against the master

would never have seen the light. As it happened, the publication of them

gave the opponents of Mr. Bliss the opportunity of conclusively showing

up the action of the Board. The letter of the Local Government Board,

containing particulars of the charges proved, was as follows--

"LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD,

"WHITEHALL,

"_August 28, 1883_.

"SIR,--I am directed by the Local Government Board to acknowledge

the receipt of your letter of the 10th inst. respecting the

decision communicated to the Guardians of the Westminster Union in

the letter which we addressed to them by the Board on the 18th ult.

upon the charges preferred against Mr. Bliss, the master of the

Workhouse, and recently investigated by their Inspectors, Mr.

Hedley and Mr. Taylor.

"The Board direct me to state, in reply, that the charges to which

they referred in that letter were the following--

"That Mr. Bliss twice threw water from a bucket over an inmate

named Ellen Coleman.

"That he kicked a woman named Ann Lane on the back of the thigh

[she was sixty-eight years old], the bruise caused thereby was

about four inches across.

"That he kicked a boy named James Daley twice on the back [he was

about thirteen years old, and was a very good boy].

"That he was in the habit of swearing, and of using expressions of

an objectionable character when irritated.

"That he had exercised no supervision as regards the entries in his

portion of the Workhouse Medical Relief Book.

"That he had not entered in the Provision Accounts as absent

inmates who were in fact absent on leave from the Workhouse.

"That he had contravened the Board's regulations by placing

Caroline Barber, aged sixty-four years, upon bread and water.

"That there had been undue delay in the registration of four births

in the Workhouse.

"That in the cases of two females, named Caroline Clegg and

Elizabeth Jacob, who died in the Workhouse, he did not take

sufficient care to give notice of their decease to their respective

relatives.

"That through want of due care, a mistake was made as to a body

sent for burial.

"That he allowed Elizabeth Farquharson to leave the Workhouse for

four days to go to work, and that he charged in his accounts

rations for her during that period.

"That his behaviour towards Mrs. Casher, on her visiting the

Workhouse to see two girls in whom she was interested, was

discourteous; and that he used very improper language to Emily

Brown on her visiting the Workhouse to see her husband, an inmate

[who was on his deathbed].

"I am, Sir,

"Your obedient servant,

"(_Signed_) C. N. DALTON,

"_Assistant Secretary_."

I have been informed that the reading of the above letter was received

by the Chairman and his followers with much exasperation, which

exhibited itself in threats of vengeance against all those, whether

inmates or officers, who had given evidence against the master. One of

the first to feel the wrath of the Chairman was Thomas Bailey, a man

seventy years of age, who was discharged from his employment in aiding

me and the master in keeping the Medical Officer's Relief Book, which he

had done for nearly twenty years, because of his wickedness in bringing

under my notice the fraudulent entries made in my portion of the Medical

Book by the master's clerk at the instance of the matron, an

irregularity which it is reasonable to suppose could only have been

condoned by the majority of the Board on the supposition that some of

them had helped to get rid of what had been falsely entered against the

names of my sick patients.

Although this fraud had been clearly proved, no attention had been drawn

to it in the report, but a mere misty reference was made to the subject

in the fifth charge proved.

Here let me observe that I believe this inquiry would have been

absolutely nugatory of any beneficial results if it had been conducted

without an assessor being present, and, considering the bearing and

physique of the two Inspectors, it seems to me that the assessor

modified his own judgment, which would have been entirely adverse to Mr.

Bliss, in deference to the manifest wish of the Inspector to screen an

old soldier from the proved charges of blasphemy and unmanly violence to

an aged woman and a small boy, for which two latter offences Mr. Bliss

would have been taken before a magistrate and severely punished if the

miserable victims had had the necessary means.

The Chairman thought, in flouting the Local Government Board by his

protection of his friend the master, that he would triumph; but at that

time he was wholly unaware of what was in store for him and the party he

had so long led.

The Inspector was not, indeed, an acceptable person to all Boards of

Guardians, as the following letter from the Holborn Board indicates--

"_February 28, 1884._

"_Re_ STANTON. Official Inquiry.

"MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,--I am directed by the Guardians of the

Poor of the Holborn Union to acknowledge the receipt of your letter

of the 26th inst., stating that you have instructed your

Inspector, Mr. Hedley, to hold an inquiry into the charges

preferred against Mr. Stanton, and that Mr. Hedley will give the

Guardians due notice of the time and place in which he intends

holding the inquiry, and to inform you that the following

Resolution was passed upon your communication being submitted to

the Guardians, viz.--

"'That the clerk write to the Local Government Board and inform

them that the Guardians are of opinion that an official should be

appointed to conduct the inquiry who has not already expressed an

opinion on the subject, which Mr. Hedley has publicly done, and

that if the Local Government Board adhere to the appointment of Mr.

Hedley to hold the inquiry, the Guardians must decline to take part

therein.'

"I am further directed to inform you that this Resolution was

carried with only one dissentient at the Board last evening.

"I have the honour to be,

"My Lords and Gentlemen,

"Your obedient servant,

"JAMES W. HILL, _Clerk_.

"THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD."

I do not know whether it was at the meeting of the Board when the

decision of the Department was first read, or on the occasion when the

Guardians heard their clerk read out the list of charges which the

Department considered were proved against Mr. Bliss, but it is certain

that the Chairman rose in his seat and moved that I be called on to

resign my appointment forthwith. Of course it was carried, and the clerk

was directed to forward me a copy of the resolution. I briefly

acknowledged its receipt. I understood that at this time this person was

much put out at my not at once complying with his request, and

threatened all sorts of vengeance on me. He was so ignorant that, in his

rage, he forgot that he could not so summarily get rid of me, and

therefore I waited patiently for his next move; indeed, I applied for

and took my usual autumn holiday. At this time there appeared in _The

Standard_ daily newspaper an article commenting on the evidence given at

the official inquiry, on the charges found to be proved, and the conduct

of the Chairman and his docile followers.

It was republished and sent to every ratepayer in both parishes. And

here I may be allowed to call attention to the fact, that in the reforms

which I have tried to secure, I have had the assistance of papers of all

parties. The article was as follows--

"WESTMINSTER UNION. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, THE GUARDIANS OF

THE POOR, AND J. D. BLISS, MASTER OF THE WORKHOUSE, POLAND STREET.

"Defend the poor and fatherless; see that such as are in need and

necessity have right."--PSALM lxxxii. 3.

"The Local Government Board, in an official communication to the

Guardians of the Westminster Union, say they have 'entertained very

great doubt whether, consistently with their public duty,' they could

'properly allow' the present master of the Poland Street Workhouse to

retain his post. It is likely that the public will go all the way with

the Local Government Board, and even a little further. The Board, having

instituted a long and searching inquiry into sundry charges brought

against the master, have arrived at the conclusion that several of the

accusations have been established. They told the Guardians so much as

this some little time back; but these authorities wished to know more

precisely what were the charges considered to be proved. It is fortunate

that these gentlemen were so far disposed to challenge the conclusions

arrived at by the central power, for the answer they received puts the

public in possession of some notable facts which otherwise might have

remained in obscurity. We now learn that the demonstrated delinquencies

of this Workhouse master include such peccadilloes as twice emptying a

bucket of water over an inmate named Ellen Coleman, and kicking a woman

named Ann Lane, as well as a boy named James Daley, the latter twice. He

also contravened the Board's regulations by placing an old woman upon

bread and water. There might be some economy in this, but it was more

than counterbalanced by an awkward habit in which the master indulged,

of charging rations for paupers absent on leave. Another irregularity

consisted in a 'mistake as to a body sent for burial,' coupled with

which we hear of 'undue delay in the registration of four births.' Then

there was confusion in the Medical Relief Books, and a neglect to give

notice when people were dead. To all this must be added a 'habit of

swearing and using expressions of an objectionable character when

irritated.' This model master of a Workhouse is further proved to have

been discourteous to the wife of a clergyman, and to have 'used very

improper language to Emily Brown,' a poor woman who came to see her

husband. For all this he is master of the Workhouse still, and, as he

retains 'the confidence of the Guardians,' the Local Government Board

'refrain from adopting the extreme course of requiring his

resignation.' But, at the same time, this redoubtable official is warned

that if any further complaints are substantiated against him he will be

most certainly asked, with all due politeness, to relinquish his

responsible office. There is, for the moment, nothing more to be done,

except, perhaps, for the Guardians to present him with a

testimonial."--_Extracted from "The Standard,"_ September 14, 1883.

(It should be clearly understood that this inquiry was instituted by a

minority of the Board, who have steadily voted for Mr. Bliss's

resignation.)

On my return to town I found that the Board generally had also gone

away, but the Chairman had given notice that when the Guardians met in

September he should move that I be suspended from my office; which in

due course he did, and, having a passive majority, carried it. This did

not alarm me at all. It was not then as it was some years ago. There was

a new Secretary at the Local Government Board, who was the worthy

successor of a most estimable father, the late Hugh Owen. Added to this

I had several friends in the House of Commons, and most assuredly Sir

Charles Dilke was not prejudiced against me. Besides this, the Chairman

could not get up a case against me. So, being aware that it would take

some weeks before any decision could be come to, as the head officials

at the Central Department would be certainly out of town, and that it

was a task beyond the intelligence of the Chairman to draft an

indictment, I again went into the country.

So soon as it became known that this Chairman had moved my suspension

simply for having resented the conduct of Bliss in cursing and swearing

at me, and disobeying my orders for the sick, numerous friends wrote to

me, and the medical journals vied with each other in denouncing the

conduct of this Board, and called on my professional brethren to rally

round me as I had been called on to resign, and was now suspended for

interfering with Bliss in his treatment of my sick poor. The action of

the Chairman and his supporters turned to my advantage, and eventually

led to his and their complete and signal expulsion from office.

Among other annotations and leading articles which appeared at this

date, I will here insert one from _The Lancet_, bearing date October 27,

1883--

"THE SUSPENSION OF DR. ROGERS.

"The suspension of Dr. Rogers from his duties by the Guardians of

the Westminster Union because of his honest testimony in an

inquiry into the conduct of the master, is an event of very great

consequence. It is impossible that the Local Government Board can

sanction the action of the Board, or disregard the memorial signed

by fifty-four of the most respectable inhabitants of St. Anne's,

including the rector, the Catholic priest, &c.; and another, signed

by ninety-four of the ratepayers of St. James's. Dr. Rogers is a

representative man. He represents not only the Poor Law medical

service, but the independence of the members of that service, and

no greater misfortune can befall the poor or the ratepayers than

that he should be persecuted by the Guardians of Westminster for

doing his duty. We cannot believe that Sir Charles Dilke will allow

such a misfortune to happen. The Local Government Board have acted

with a strange inconsistency in retaining the master of the

Workhouse. It is inconceivable that they will play into his hands,

and those of the Guardians who assist him, by sanctioning the

dismissal of Dr. Rogers. But the profession and the members of the

Poor Law service, should lose no time in organizing a proper

movement for vindicating Dr. Rogers' claims and position."

After my suspension I went to Bournemouth, and whilst there heard of

the above movement in my support, and also saw that my friends in the

profession were organizing a testimonial in my favour, subscriptions to

which came from all parts of the kingdom. So that, instead of injuring

me, the action of the Guardians secured me three months' holiday, a

testimonial worth £200, and gave me that leisure which enabled me to

work up a party that some six months after drove the Chairman and his

followers from office.

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.

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 £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.

"'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

£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.