456 
SHOEING—THE FROG. 
rally my own average loss, when I hunted regularly with my own 
stud. 
The usual precautions are taken at Melton; that is to say, the 
smiths attend every hunting morning the studs shod by them, for 
which a shilling is the regular charge; but, to my surprise, the 
shoeing at Melton is not considered first-rate. It is true that, what 
with the number of bridle roads and the larking propensities of 
their owners, hunters travel less upon hard roads in Leicestershire 
than those of most other counties do; still, where the best and most 
valuable hunters in the world are to be found, we should look for 
the most skilful shoeing-smiths. 
In allusion to your profession, as a subject of conversation 
amongst hunting men, may I be allowed to recapitulate some ob¬ 
servations by a large owner of horses, and a good old practical 
sportsman, on the theory and practice of the late Professor Cole¬ 
man ] It was much to this effect, first touching shoeing:— 
The first great error of Mr. Coleman was, his imagining, or ap¬ 
pearing to imagine, that all young horses had perfect feet, and he 
acted on that principle; whereas there are not two alike in a dozen, 
inasmuch as they differ in shape, consistency, &c. And this ac¬ 
counts for so many differently shapen shoes in what was called the 
old system of shoeing,” the shoes having been shapen to the feet as 
the smiths found them. And this is also one reason why we now 
differ so much as to what is the best shoe for general use; and the 
question arises, whether w^e can, by good management of the feet, 
bring them all to take one particularly shapen shoe 1 Mr. Coleman 
and others spoke much of the old system, the old shoe, and the 
common shoe; but, in fact, there was no old system, and no com¬ 
mon shoe. The smith made a shoe according to the foot; and by 
the different opinions now given, we are doing much the same 
thing, although, by understanding the treatment of the foot better, 
we get nearer to the use of one particularly shapen shoe. We 
shall, however, never completely succeed in this object, from the 
variety of natural shape of the foot, nature of the work, and so 
forth. Mr. Turner’s unilateral shoe, for example, is a shoe of relief, 
but it cannot be brought into general use. 
Mr. Coleman made no distinction between naturally narrow feet 
and those become so by circumstances; and by endeavouring to ex¬ 
pand the former by frog pressure he lamed many horses. Look at 
the Arab horse, the mule, and the ass; a high and narrow heel is one 
of their principal characteristics, but how rarely is either lame in 
the feet! Mr. Coleman conceived that the frog was naturally on the 
ground, and insisted upon the necessity of expansion by pressufe 
on this organ. By this reasoning he must have supposed the frog 
to be a solid and fixed body, whereas it exfoliates in layers. No- 
