A letter to the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Palmerston ... on the subject of the Ophthalmic Institution for the cure of Chelsea Pensioners / by John Vetch.

  • Vetch, John, 1783-1835.
Date:
1819
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A letter to the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Palmerston ... on the subject of the Ophthalmic Institution for the cure of Chelsea Pensioners / by John Vetch. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.

    26/36 (page 26)
    from the inspection of those officers, until their several reports shall be received at the offices of the Commander in Chief and Secretary at War. We have the honor to he, »• Sir, Your most obedient humble Servants, (Signed) Benjamin Moseley, M.D. Physician, Chelsea Hospital, T. Keate, W. North. Sir, Royal Hospital, Chelsea, 29th April, 1818. In conformity to your letter of the 25th inst. we have the honor to send for the information of the Lords Commissioners the names of fifteen men and their cases, with the changes we have observed to have taken place since their admission in December, 1817. And we have nothing farther to offer upon this occasion than was submitted to their Lordships after the former examination of thirty-four men, “ that, although in a few instances, there appeared to be some amendment, we are led to apprehend, from analogous cases, that the improvement, even of those few, will be but temporary; and that relapses will frequently occur; whilst, in by far the greater number, there does not appear to be any change for the better.” We have the honor to be. Sir, Your most obedient. Very humble Servants, (Signed) B. Moseley* T. Keate, W. North. Royal Hospital, Chelsea, 24th Aug. 1818. Sir, In answer to a note from Mr. Lynn, by your direction, we beg to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords Commissioners, that we have re-examined thirteen men at the York Hospital; and that the result of this examination furnishes little more information for the Commissioners than is contained in our former reports. In a few cases it should seem, from the contradictory and inconsistent statements of the patients themselves, that there has been some amendment; but, in these cases the men