Robert Jackson, M.D., late inspector-general of army hospitals / [Le Roy Crummer].

  • Crummer, Le Roy, 1872-1934.
Date:
1922
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Robert Jackson, M.D., late inspector-general of army hospitals / [Le Roy Crummer]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    19/24 (page 17)
    of the Medical Department of the British Army,” and in 1805 he pub¬ lished “A System for the Arrangement and Discipline of the Medical Department of the Army.” In 1808 Parliament had appointed a commission to inquire into the conduct of the various departments of the army, and in so doing did not neglect the Medical Department. In the course of their investigation this commission must have seen and studied Jackson’s books and pam¬ phlets, since in the celebrated Fifth Medical Report, which came out in 1808, changes were suggested directly in line with the recommendations which Jackson had offered in his various contributions. The Fifth Medical Report created consternation in the minds of the Physician General and the Surgeon General, and Mr. Keate published his “Observations upon the Parliamentary Report” in which he attacked Jackson’s character. Jackson then made request for a public investiga¬ tion before a military court, which request was refused by the Judge Advocate General upon the technical ground that Jackson was retired upon half pay and could not make such a demand. Jackson met this situation by writing open letters to Keate, which were far from being politic or diplomatic; in fact his accusations were vitriolic in character. This was just at the beginning of the Peninsular campaign, when things in Spain were so serious that everyone was anxious to get into the service. Dr. Jackson intimated to the Duke of York that his serv¬ ices were at his disposal, regardless of any rank to which he might be assigned. The duke referred this offer to the Army Medical Board, which practically consisted of Keate and Pepys, and they informed the duke that there were insurmountable objections to Jackson being em¬ ployed in any capacity in the Medical Department. The controversy then waged furiously again, mainly concerning Dr. Jackson’s medical diploma, the board contending that he did not have a diploma, and Jackson offering proof that it had been lost in the campaign on the Continent in 1794, and stating that a certified copy could be obtained from the University at Leyden. The board further brought up the Chatham incident of 1801 and questioned Jackson’s practice and method of treating the sick. As a sample of Jackson’s open communications in the controversy, the following aspersion on Sir Lucas Pepys, Physician General and the court favorite, may be of interest: If my doctrines and practices be erroneous, it is time that they should be publicly proscribed; but it would be unfair, and it might be injurious, to proscribe them on the bare assertion of the president of the college, who never saw me treat a single case of disease, and who appears himself never to have treated a patient of the class upon which my practice was tried. The illness of the soldier and those of the ladies