"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.