716 
PERIPLANTAR SHOEING. 
is unfair, and as my opinion remains what it was some months 
ago, I have a right to protest against such an inference, so 
far as my evidence is concerned. When we learn the results 
of other more extended and, no douht, more carefully con¬ 
ducted trials of this method—which has now been in existence 
four years—it will be time enough to decide whether or not it is 
as capable of being carried into general practice as it is sound 
in principle. The subject of shoeing—at one time my par¬ 
ticular, and oftentimes unwelcome, hobby—has always been 
to me one of great importance, and I have tried, and seen 
tried, both fashions of light and heavy shoeing, non-paring 
and paring. Unfortunately, the latter of both were first, 
and were rather too long, practised by me; and after resorting 
to the others, I would rather abjure the profession than have 
recourse to them again, so much injury to the horse do I 
believe they produce. 
A communication, from a Bristol veterinary surgeon, 
appears in the Veterinarian for this month. I decline 
noticing it, except to remark that, though the writer takes 
the liberty of designating me our friend,^’ I am perfectly 
unacquainted wdth him, and am not sure that I ever heard 
of him before. This unusual familiarity and the tone of the 
letter are, I think, as easily accounted for as are the relations 
between keeping a large shoeing forge in the heart of that 
city where certain principles prevail, and an extensive expe¬ 
rience among horses with diseased feet. 
In conclusion, I must say I experience some regret in 
being compelled to state that for the future I will not notice 
any observations on this or any other subject emanating from 
the source which has provoked the above reply, and particu¬ 
larly with a view to discussion—though I will adopt Mr. 
Dyer’s course, and he prepared to read them. Thinking to 
add my testimony to the value of a certain method of treating 
a particular disease—a method which had been more or less 
practised two centuries ago, which is mentioned in various 
Continental treatises on veterinary medicine, and which I have 
myself tried—I have been pounced upon in a manner which 
‘‘savours somewhat of a feeling I am unwilling to name.” 
Though well aware that anything an army veterinary surgeon 
may say or do is sure to be received with disfavour by a certain 
limited class, yet I acknowledge that in this instance I thought 
I might venture to add my humble mite without fear of its 
rejection with so much contumely. I lacked the practical 
experience of Mr. Dyer, have been disappointed, and promise 
I won’t do so again. 
A word as to my communications. I had every con- 
