“When doctors disagree who shall decide?” The readers of this little manual will probably say as they read Mr. Dacre Fox’s paper, that it is alike a testimony and a vindication of the “Art of the Bone-setter.” CHAPTER VIII. _WHAT BONE-SETTERS CURE._ “Man’s life, Sir, being so short, and then the way that leads unto the knowledge of ourselves, so long and tedious; each minute should be precious.”—_Beaumont and Fletcher._ Throughout the many references to the Bone-setter and his art, which I have quoted in the foregoing pages, the Bone-setter is constantly misrepresented. He is described as a man of one idea, one formula, and one mode of operation. His ruling idea is said to be that a “bone is out” in all cases submitted to him. His formula to wrench the joint so as to break adhesions, and to replace the bones in their normal conditions. His mode of operation is said to be brute-force suddenly applied. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is an offhand generalization from a few cases out of thousands, and therefore misleading. If these statements were true there would be but few who would trust themselves and their painful limbs to the Bone-setter’s care lest his force should be applied in the wrong direction. A brother Bone-setter (Mr. J. M. Jackson, of Boston), has pointed out how irrational and absurd Mr. Hood’s statements on the one hand and admissions on the other necessarily are. Bonesetters, as a rule, are as regular and legitimate in their practice as any medical man can be, though they are not recognised by law. As Mr. Jackson truly says: “All kinds of fractures and dislocations, and other injuries are constantly being placed under their care and treatment, with the utmost confidence on the part of the patients and their friends; a confidence inspired by indisputable success on the part of a practitioner in a given locality and district, for a series of years—it may be for a lifetime.” Mr. Jackson, in his timely little pamphlet, very truly points out that “living reasons” for this confidence can be found in town and country where the practice has been carried on, or who have experienced the greatest benefits under the skilful treatment of the Bone-setter, even after the wisdom of the faculty had declared there was nothing wrong. That such men are ignorant of anatomy, and but seldom have dislocations under their care, and, that when they have, and succeed in replacing the joint, that it is done unconsciously, and what they do is the result of blind chance and ‘sudden movement’ without any knowledge of how, or why such results are brought about; the idea is ridiculous in the extreme; upon this hypothesis the practitioner would nearly approach the “supernatural!” I am glad to record this opinion, because it not only reflects the opinion of the public, but shows that the faculty have tried to prove too much. The position of the Bone-setter may be clearly defined, thus:—“_We lay no claim to skill beyond what