NEW BROOMS. 97 



rocking of the foot." Again, " The concavity of the shoe 

 is a safeguard against halting (?) and picking up stones." 

 This can hardly be correct ; for, unless the shoe be flush 

 with the sole of the foot (and this it cannot be while the 

 calkins exist) it will pick up any stone that happens to fit 

 it, just like the old one. 



I do not wish to take up space by saying again what 

 has been said by other correspondents, further than to 

 agree with one writer, who considered that all the 

 novelty of the Goodenough shoe is borrowed from the 

 Charlier, and to correct Mr. Broad's statement in the 

 Field of Feb. 13, that Messrs. Mavor's patent shoe is 

 as nearly as possible identical with the Charlier. The 

 principles of the two are quite different. Mr. Mavor's 

 shoe has been found useless, and abandoned accordingly 

 that is correct enough ; but the Charlier shoe has yet 

 to be tried in this country. 



The great advantage claimed by the admirers of the 

 Goodenough who consist at present only of American 

 omnibus owners, and Mr. Lethbridge of England (at 

 least, I gather so from the published certificates) is 

 that this shoe allows the frog and sole to touch the 

 ground. This, by the way, it cannot do with and with- 

 out the calkins ; so either the calks are useless, or the 

 shoe will have to be renewed every twelfth day. Now, 

 the Charlier shoe is from the first flush with the sole, the 

 horse's foot being in the condition nearest approaching 

 to nature of any hitherto arrived at. Much stress has 

 been laid on the lightness of the Goodenough shoe, 

 but the Charlier is lighter still. In the old system, on 

 hard ground, of course the shoe sustains all the weight, 

 and all the wear and tear. The Charlier shoe cannot 

 possibly pick up a stone, nor can it snowball to any great 



H 



