18 



is this very important difference between the two operations ; 

 nature never removes the horny covering, until she has provided 

 another horny covering beneath, so that, although a large 

 portion of the fi-og may have been removed, there still remains 

 a perfect frog behind, smaller it is tnie, but covered with 

 horn, and in every way fitted to sustain exposure ; whUe 

 the knife on the contrary removes the horny covering, but 

 is unable to substitute any other in its stead : my advice 

 therefore is to leave the frog to itself: nature will remove 

 the superfluous horn ; and the rags can do no harm, and, 

 if unmolested, will soon disappear altogether. 



In describing the form of the shoe, and explaining its 

 details, I shall not hesitate to repeat any thing, wliich I may 

 have said before, if it should appear to me, that by so doing 

 I can render myself more intelligible. 



The first recommendation, I have to offer concerning the 

 shoe itself, has reference, not to its form, but to its weight ; 

 and is suggested by the prevailing idea, that shoes cannot 

 well be too light. A very little reflection will convince us, 

 that this notion must be founded in error, invohdng as it 

 does two most objectionable properties in a shoe, viz. liability 

 to bend, and insuflicient covering. The inconvenience to a 

 horse of an ounce or so of increased weight in each shoe is 

 not worth a moment's consideration, compared with the dis- 

 comfort to him of travelling upon a hard road with a bent 

 shoe on his foot, straining the nails, and making unequal and 

 painful pressure : the other evil, arising out of light shoes, is 

 a deficiency of width in the web,'"' which robs the foot of 



* Plate 3, fig. 2 



