Like the Royal Society, when Charles II. asked that learned body the answer to certain propositions, the medical profession continued for years to “hum and haw” over the self-evident fact that Bone-setting was not only an institution, but a successful profession. I have taken somewhat at random from my voluminous collection of notes on the subject, a few of the printed opinions of those “who were convinced against their will,” but could _not_ “be of the same opinion still,” but wished to modify the self-evident facts or gloss them over to harmonise with previously expressed declarations. [Illustration: PLATE V.—FRACTURES. 19. Disunited fracture. 20. Fracture of pelvis. 21. Extra capsular fracture of humerus. 22. Fracture of scapula. 23. Fracture of jaw. 24. Fracture of femur.] In 1880, the Clinical Society, at their meeting, held on April 9, had the subject of “Bone-setting” under discussion. Mr. Howard Marsh, whose experience is elsewhere given (page 95) gave instances of a number of cases he had treated after the Bone-setter’s manner, and which had been quite successful. He gave his testimony to the great service Sir James Paget had rendered to the profession by drawing attention to the subject in his clinical lectures which had since been republished with others (see pp. 69-74). He further said that _displacements of cartilages, and slipped tendons might be, and doubtless sometimes were, put right by Bone-setters; but he believed the cases of adhesions—especially such as occurred after an injury outside a joint_, which itself was healthy, afforded by far the most numerous instances of improvement after forcible movement, and he expressed his conviction that they were much more frequent in practice than was generally supposed. He gave other several instances where he had followed the Bone-setter’s treatment as given by Dr. Wharton Hood. He, of course, was silent as to the practice of the Bone-setters in reducing fractures, and their treatment of cases which never came under the care of the faculty at all, and which were satisfactory to the patients. Mr. Hulke thought it was an approbrium to surgery that so many persons sought advice from Bone-setters, and he mentioned that “even intelligent people are blinded by these men!” Many alleged instances of injury following the treatment of the Bone-setter, but there was a little contemptuous tone with respect to country surgeons, which ere long evoked a reply. In the next number of the _Lancet_, there appeared a letter from Dr. D. H. Monckton, of Rugeley, pointing out that it would seem “that the chief object sought in the debate was to prove to country surgeons that their metropolitan brethren understand, and can cure such conditions of the joints if only they are sent up to them.” In other words, they want to occupy the place and receive the fees of the ousted Bone-setters, whose secrets they had appropriated, after covering them with approbrium as quacks and empirics.