ON THE EXPANSION OF THE HORSE’S FOOT. 127 
flat hoof and the flat stone), which might not in all cases be suf¬ 
ficient to produce a very sensible effect, and which friction should 
be guarded against in making the experiment. 
But to return.—We must not forget to consider the spirit, 
whether partial or impartial, in which an experiment is performed. 
Now, Mr. Morgan reminds us of those reasoners who make all 
their facts bend to a predetermined opinion ; for he tells us 
‘‘These experiments, &c. were originally intended as an answer 
to some letters in the Sporting Magazine ” 
Lancet, 1828-9. vol i, p. 824. 
Mr. Morgan in Reply to Mr. C. Clark. 
Sir,— My communication, inserted in your valuable journal. 
No. 287-9, of the result of some experiments relating to the sup¬ 
posed expanding and collapsing power of horses’ feet, which I 
tried, in consequence of a statement in the Sporting Magazine, 
lias excited a most virulent and personal attack against me, from 
the pen of a Mr. Charles Clark, who styles himself a veterinary 
surgeon, though his name does not appear in the annual list pub¬ 
lished by the Royal Veterinary College. 
The facts which I stated he has not attempted to invalidate, 
except by gratuitous assertions, by rude vituperation, and oblique 
insinuations, unfavourable to ray professional character, and the 
motives of my communication. I can only account for this acri¬ 
monious violence, by the contempt which I unluckily evinced 
for theorists and book-makers, whose ignorance and inexperience 
have done more to retard the progress of the veterinary art than 
all the prejudices of smiths and grooms put together: but “let 
the gall’d jade wince.” I did not seek this controversy, nor 
shall I persevere in it further than a just regard to my profes¬ 
sional character and veracity require. I am free to acknowledge 
iny literary deficiencies, and do not pretend to compete with hack- 
nied writers, whose professional avocations, fortunately, leave 
them so much leisure for composition. As for me, I am other¬ 
wise employed, and have no occasion to seek any surreptitious 
stage to exhibit upon, or write myself into practice. I will, how¬ 
ever, venture to tell these gentlemen, that invective is neither an 
answer to fact nor a support to baseless theory. 
The experiments w'hich I detailed to you and your readers 
were performed with a view to ascertain whether, according to 
the statement of “ Nubia,” in the Sporting Magazine, a horse’s 
foot really collapsed and expanded the one-eighth of an inch. 
The same writer says, that they were jrerformed on a mare stand¬ 
ing quietly in her stall. But now, it seems, they can only be 
