The faculty have evidently much to learn ere they can successfully compete with Bone-setters in the special cases to which they devote their time, abilities and attention. The patients are the best judges of results, and by results the surgeon must be judged. Their case is not helped by detailing how a Chinese farrier killed a girl the Emperor desired to marry, by forcibly straightening her hump-back, as recorded in page 900 of the _Lancet_ for 1872. It is far better for them to admit as Dr. G. Reed admitted in the same journal that he “had his eye wiped” by a Bone-setter, at Liverpool, who cured a sailor whom he failed to relieve. Throughout the medical publications from 1871 to 1880, there are frequent allusions to the bone-setter and several admissions by surgical practitioners,[5] that they have followed the method of the bone-setter with success, and discarded therefore the teaching of the schools; for though the _Lancet_ itself welcomed Dr. Wharton Hood’s exposition of the art of the Bone-setter, as tending “to afford the means for the suppression of a widely prevalent and _very mischievous_ form of quackery which has been based, as every _success_ of the kind must be upon some _neglected_ or _forgotten_ truth. The late Mr. Hutton, on whose practise, Dr. Wharton Hood’s papers are founded, was for many years a sort of bugbear to not a few of the most distinguished surgeons of London, and every few months some fresh case was heard of in which he had given immediate relief and speedy cure to a patient who seemed vainly to have exhausted the legitimate skill of the metropolis.” This is an admission somewhat at variance with its previous utterances, and not as frank as the organ of a boasted liberal profession should be, and is far from generous, for its tone is embittered.