“The art of Bone-setting, then, is the art of overcoming these impediments in joints, these conditions or impaired freedom which not unfrequently supervene on the curative processes of treatment in use by surgeons in case of fracture or dislocation, or which may arise from and be observed only after the subsidence of active rheumatism, gout, gangrene swellings, or other local affections; and this brings us to the question—How is it done? how are these stiffened joints set free? how are these impediments to healthy action overcome? The answer of the regular practitioner is that which has been already quoted, namely—‘to rest it’—advice which usually entails a distressing failure; the answer of the irregular practitioner, _i.e._, the Bone-setter, is precisely the opposite, namely—that freedom can only be restored to the stiffened joint by movement, by manipulation, and manipulation, too, of the most formidable kind, nothing less than suddenly and forcibly rupturing, tearing asunder the adhesions formed between the articulating surfaces of the affected joint, an operation which is so frequently successful that it forms the very basis of the Bone-setter’s craft.” This is very forcibly and clearly expressed, but its verbiage tends somewhat to place the Bone-setter in a formidable and forbidding light, as opposed to the regular practitioner, but as a matter of every-day experience such is not the case. It is true, that the injury of years cannot be removed in a twinkle of an eye, without the patient suffering any pain or inconvenience. No bone-setter pretends to do that, but his mode of procedure is not of that violent and repellant character which Mr. Maclaren’s words would seem to imply:— “It is here,” continues Mr. Maclaren, “that the Bone-setter steps in front of the scientific surgeon, _and we must confess to a feeling of disappointment that their relative positions are not reversed_, that the surgeon is not called in to rectify the malpractices of the quack, instead of the latter being sought out to complete the shortcomings of the former.” These are not our words, but the words of an independent reviewer in a scientific periodical. He tells his readers that the Bone-setter is not a man with only one remedy and one resource, but that “he has a clearly defined system of treatment for each separate joint, if not for each specific affection to which each joint is subject.” What qualified surgeon, what regular practitioner has more than that? He follows the dogma and doctrine of the schools. The Bone-setter that of experience, practice and the traditions of generations of practitioners. The one is recognised by law, and the other is not.