"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."