junction, with their cartilaginous epiphises. I continued to press it gently forward, by rolling it freely between my fingers. When it had penetrated to about two thirds, its whole depth (an inch) I enquired if she experienced either pain from the puncture, or relief from the disease; she replied, “she scarcely felt the instrument, but that her rheumatism had suddenly abated of its violence;” and to my surprise, this reply was expressed in her natural tone of voice. She added, “that she could now speak and breathe freely,” so that I now found her former taciturnity, which I had attributed to moroseness, was banished. I continued the introduction of the needle, and in a few minutes the disease was dislodged, and fled to the back of the chest, near the angle of the ribs. The motions of the shoulder were now restored to their utmost freedom, and I withdrew the needle, and inserted it into the part which had become the seat of the pain, about two inches from the spinal column. The disease soon began to dissipate itself totally; the patient said she was free from uneasiness, and could make a deep inspiration without pain. The instrument having been retained in its place five or six minutes, was withdrawn; the chest had regained its full liberty of action, and the utmost variety of flexion of the body could be used, not the slightest inconvenience ensuing. The next day, however, the pain again visited the anterior part of the chest, and I again had recourse to the needle. The operation was completely successful; for excepting a slight darting pain, which occasionally troubled her for a few days afterwards, no symptoms of the disorder remained, and she continues at this time to attend to the duties of her station in my family. Whilst occupied with the preceding pages, I received the following communication from my friend, Mr. Jukes; which I subjoin as the strongest corroborative evidence of the efficacy of the practice under our consideration. “Great Peter-Street, Westminster, February 27, 1821. MY DEAR SIR,