SHOEING. 
457 
thing could be much more ridiculous than the different patents he 
took out for this purpose, all of which failed. In fact, shoeing was 
considered a simple process until Mr. Coleman appeared with his 
false notions, and put ignorant people on a wrong scent; and, after 
all, his system was but a compilation from old authors—La Fosse 
and others. But what is the result] Why, after blundering on 
false principles and ruinous practice for upwards of thirty years, 
we are come back to where Mr. Moorcroft left us, which is the plain, 
concave-seated shoe, fullered and steeled at the toe, which is the 
nearest of any to perfection, and which we can generally avail our¬ 
selves of, with proper treatment in the stable, so as to meet the 
smith half way. The different opinions at the present time, indeed, 
on the subject of shoeing in a great measure have their origin in the 
different forms of the natural foot, and in the way it ought to be 
treated by the smith. The French smith nearly leaves the foot as 
he finds it; at all events he leaves abundance of sole. How far 
he is justified in so doing a difference of opinion may exist; but 
one thing is certain,—there are fewer lame horses in France than 
there are in England—to be accounted for in part, perhaps, by the 
gentler method of using them; and the French appear to be of 
opinion that there are as many sins of commission as of omission 
in the treatment of horses’ feet. 
Then my informant spoke of a book of instructions which 
Mr. Coleman sent forth to the cavalry regiments, to those in what 
are called out-quartefs, accompanied by a medicine chest. But 
what a medicine chest was it ] No aloes, but alterative and fe- 
brifuge powders were the grand panacea! To this I have nothing 
to say, neither is it material to our present object,—the diffusion 
of veterinary knowledge; but from what I have read and heard, 
I am free to observe that it was high time for Mr. Coleman to 
change—as he is acknowledged to have done—both his doctrine 
and his practice, although I would not go to the extreme length of 
Mr. Clark, who thinks the theories he enforced with most 
weight were uniformly true when exactly reversed.” He opposed 
the union of the interests of the agriculturist and the veterinarian 
by opposing the study of comparative anatomy, and here he com¬ 
mitted a great error. Surely he should have done all in his power 
to promote rather than to check the extension of veterinary in¬ 
struction. 
This allusion to the connexion between the agriculturist and 
the veterinarian reminds me of the very interesting debate that 
lately took place amongst the members of your profession on the 
external conformation of cattle. The part reverting to the skin, 
and to what is called the “ touch,” must have been highly inte¬ 
resting; and nothing can be more true than the editorial remark, 
