§ SIR JOHN SIMEONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, What were the grounds on which the Board accepted the resignation of Dr. Rogers, the late Medical Officer of the Strand Union; and, whether that resignation implied anything unfavourable to the character or to the professional ability of Dr. Rogers?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, in reply, that the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member were these:—In December last the Board of Guardians of the Strand Union called upon their medical officer. Dr. Rogers, to resign, and the matter coming before the Poor Law Board, they asked for an explanation of the reasons for such a step being taken. The Board of Guardians returned for answer that Dr. Rogers had, for a long time past, committed a series of indiscretions which rendered it impossible for them to work harmoniously together, and exhibiting a great want of courtesy in his communications with the Officers of the Board. The result was, that the Board thought it necessary to suspend him from his office. With respect to the second part of the Question, he could not do better than read the concluding paragraph of the Board's letter on the occasion, which stated—
The Board are happy to be able to add that no blame can be imputed to you in reference to the discharge of your strictly professional duties, and the Board do not doubt that you have shown, zeal and ability in the performance of them. This adds to the regret of the Board that you should, from other causes, have rendered it necessary for them to accept your resignation.