700 MR. H. B RODWAY IN DEFENCE OF HIS PATENT SHOE 
ously unknown, and upon such trial have I been prepared to 
answer any question which might be put: this, I feel assured, 
C establishments of the highest standing will admit. I am 
t j j also to say, 1 have in no case (except with determined 
prejudice) failed to convince that it had advantages which did 
not exist in the common shoe. As you appear undecided on one 
or two self-evident points, I shall be most happy to render any op- 
portunity in my power to accomplish conviction ; for my wish has 
ever been, that the patent concave shoe should stand or fall by 
its own merits. That you are aware of its having advantages 
over the common shoe is proved by the respectable testimony 
you have kindly given of “ Mr. Henderson, veterinary surgeon 
to her Majesty the Queen Dowager, who has been driving about 
town with his horse shod in Rodway’s shoes, and finds him de- 
cidedly safer upon wood pavements and slippery surfaces than he 
was in the shoes he wore before.” The appearance of this fact 
also assures me you have sufficient generosity of nature either to 
reject that which is palpably bad by proof, or, as a duty to your 
profession, to encourage and assist in adopting that system in 
which, as yet, no fault of principle has been established, but 
approved by some of the highest authorities in the kingdom. I 
have never contemplated the least interference with the trade of 
the shoeing smith ; and those members of the veterinary profession 
who exclude from their minds every feeling save the good of the 
community at large, I call upon, freely and openly, to make the 
observations they may think proper upon the patent concave 
shoe, and (though several in the profession have tendered their 
services in such case) as freely and openly will I alone answer 
them. If the result should prove that the patent shoe should not 
possess all the advantages ascribed to it, it shall be readily ac- 
knowledged ; on the other hand, if I should, by the testimonies 1 
am in possession of, and the fair tests of the principle by experi- 
ence, prove it an improvement on the common shoe, I feel as- 
sured, from what I know of that profession, they will generously 
admit it. It was my intention not even to touch at present upon 
the substance of your review ; but my thanks are certainly due, 
and I beg to tender them, for the following admissions on your 
part : — “ We perfectly agree with Mr. Rodway, that the great 
objection to the common shoe is its violation of the intentions and 
principles of nature Also, “ Over improper or bad shoeing, 
therefore, which indeed is but too frequent, here is an undeniable 
advantage.” Also, " Mr. Rodway’s shoe is lighter than the 
common horse-shoe by some two or three ounces, and therein 
consists another advantage.” Again, “ That a shoe with a broad 
deep groove in it, such as Mr. Rodway’s, must prevent a horse 
