250 ON THE EXPANSION OF THE FOOT, 
spondent would, therefore, have done better could he have pro¬ 
duced proof against this mode of nailing as a system, instead of 
alarming us with a stale objection, which is always made by the 
transient observer, and so naturally arises in every unprepared 
mind. Without attempting to disturb his profound geometrical 
diagrams, it is enough to shew, that multitudes of facts, and the 
practice of so many gentlemen, oppose his reasoning. I can only 
compare his labours to those of the man who, on a hot summer's 
day, set about calculating that, from our immense distance of 
ninety millions of miles from the sun, it was impossible his rays 
could have any power to warm us: the inference he draws 
would appear on a par with this to men daily and successfully 
practising the unilateral shoe; of whom there are now in France 
and England, perhaps, many scores. 
Being on the same side as Mr. Turner on this question, and 
consequently in a favourable situation for a parley, I beg leave 
to say a few words respecting our former differences on this 
subject, premising' that, as we are advocating the same principle, 
we ought to avoid angry disputes. Mr. T. says, at p. 127, 
“ Shortly after the publication, in The Veterinarian, of my 
expose of the chief error in shoeing, I was assailed in no very 
measured terms by the relatives of Mr. Bracy Clark, to whom I 
instantly replied.” Now, although I am proud of being a near 
relative of this gentleman, and am the only one who wrote on 
this occasion, Mr. T. cannot mean that I assailed him; for I defy 
any man to find in my first “remarks” on his production other 
language than that of praise and congratulation. Having been 
from the hour I began practice advocating the necessity of the 
expansion of the foot, it was satisfactory to see this principle 
adopted by Mr. Turner, more particularly as it had heretofore 
been customary with the profession to blink at, stifle, and deny 
Mr. B. Clark’s labours respecting it. What was my surprise to 
find a “ reply” in the next Number, indignantly denying that he 
had acted upon principle, or derived his views from the works of 
Mr. Clark, a circumstance which I had not doubted, and could 
not doubt for a moment, knowing that he was acquainted with 
them. However, this, though a “ reply,” was no refutation; it 
merely disclaimed my remarks, but left untouched the principal 
statements. Neither did he ever notice Mr. Brightwen’s letter, 
which appeared at the same time, to the effect of having' used 
the side-nailing for seven years on twenty horses, by Mr. B. 
Clark’s recommendation ; a statement which sets the question of 
priority at rest. And Mr. Clark himself has since, in the con¬ 
cluding No. 6 of his work on the Foot, most candidly shewn 
the real origin of the system, at a date much earlier than this, by 
