ON SOUNDNESS. 
07 
It appears to me that in these discussions there was too much 
attempted to be done at once, and much extraneous matter was 
suffered to creep in. Perhaps a better mode of proceeding would 
be, first, to propose, and endeavour to establish, a broad and 
simple ruling principle which may serve as a basis upon which to 
conduct the examination generally, and then discuss separately 
all those points that seem to stand out, or which are said not to 
come within the broad line we have drawn. Now, as a general 
guiding and determining principle, I know of none better than 
that, in fact, sought to be established in Mr. Percivall’s two lead¬ 
ing propositions, which, however, I would simplify into one, and 
say, ‘ that alterations of structure, attended with interruption or 
impairment of function, constitute unsoundness.’ This point 
once agreed upon, we may then proceed to examine all those cases 
which appear to deviate from the general rule; and in doing this, 
if we were to adopt, as a clause or collateral rule, an observation 
which fell from Mr. Field in the first night’s debate, we should be 
assisted, I think, very much in our conclusions. ‘ The rule which 
he would adopt is, that all horses with alteration of structure 
which does not interfere with the function of the part, and which 
experience tells us is not likely to interfere with it for a definite 
time, are sound.’ And if we admit this, may we not add the 
counterpart,—that, in those cases where there is alteration of 
structure which does not at present interfere with the function of 
the part, but which experience tells us is likely to interfere with 
it at no very distant period, we should pronounce a verdict of 
unsound ? Splents may be said, I think, to come fairly within 
the meaning of the first of these heads; whilst spavin may 
perhaps be more properly ranged under the latter. For the rest, 
as to the question, whether a horse having one disease upon him 
at the time of sale, is returnable for another that may supervene, 
I would resign this point entirely to the lawyers, as being more 
properly within their province than ours. They shall be welcome, 
as far as my voice goes, to all the benefit of it, and I would give 
them the starred decanter into the bargain; and they may also 
have the question of ‘ how long after the sale of a horse he may 
be returnable?’ These are questions, I say, if not purely of law, 
yet belonging more to the gentlemen of the long robe than to us ; 
and we have debatable ground enough of our own. 
As for natural defects and deformities, these, I think, are also 
matters we had better not meddle with. I never yet heard of any 
man having returned a horse because he had one jaw shorter than 
the other, although I have seen several instances of this deformity. 
That which has never yet been complained of as a grievance, can 
scarcely be worth legislating for. And how, pray, would a man 
look in a court of law, were he to bring an action for damages be- 
