After a careful examination he said, ‘If you will consent to suffer the pain, (it was before the use of chloroform) I will agree to restore the arm.’ He went on to say that pressure demonstrated a slight crepitation at the joint, and also a slight elasticity; and this assured him that the trouble was in the ligaments; that in consequence of the long imprisonment of the arm in splints, while under inflammation, a ligamentous adhesion had taken place, and the synovial fluid had been absorbed. He then applied one hand firmly to the elbow, and the other to the palmar end of the radius, and diverting my attention by anecdote and wit, thus relaxing the resistance of the will to pain, he gave a sudden wrench, there was a sound like the ripping of cotton cloth, and the arm lay outstretched before me, quivering with pain, but capable of motion. Mechanical appliances for a few weeks, so far completed the restoration that I have ever since had about four-fifths of its normal use and power.” Here was evidently an instance of manipulation, which, if done by a bone-setter, would be called empirical, but as it was performed by a retired surgeon, it was “scientific.” If the benefit is the same, why this difference of designation? Let the “faculty” reply in person—“What in the captain is but a choleric word; in the soldier is rank blasphemy.” CHAPTER IV. _THE TESTIMONY OF THE FACULTY._ “What in the captain but a choleric word is in the soldier rank blasphemy.” The first volume of the British Medical Journal for 1867 opens with a report of a Lecture delivered by Mr., now Sir James Paget, Bart., on “Cases that Bone-setters cure.” The Lecture is the first recognition as far as I am aware that the profession of the Bone-setters received at the hands of a professional surgeon, or qualified medical man, anything more than the opprobrium of being a “quack,” an empiric, or a charlatan. Ignorance, presumption, want of skill and knowledge were laid to the charge of the Bone-setter. His success, if success, as it admittedly did, attend his efforts to alleviate the anguish of a sprain, to reduce a fracture or a dislocation, was attributed to a happy accident, or “luck,” whilst any failure, or any mistake, as if failures and mistakes were never made by those whose names were duly printed in the _Medical Register_, was trumpeted always in the medical journals and in the private coteries frequented by the local doctors who happened to hear of the case. The many cures were pooh-poohed, only the failures were deemed worthy of publicity. It appears to have been forgotten that not many years have elapsed since the barber-chirurgeons were the only recognised professors of surgery. That the present scientific system of surgery is of comparatively recent date. That there are instances on record of both physicians and surgeons being tabooed and denounced because they had wandered from the beaten path and had found out modes of curing disease and alleviating