-—-——_ 
212 
and enabled the horse to discharge his duty with 
more ease and pleasure to himself, and greater 
security to his rider.” 
Rodway’s patent shoe was invented to suit the 
slippery surface of the wooden pavements which 
began, some years ago, to be formed in parts of 
several of the chief towns of the kingdom. It 
is simply a concave-faced shoe, whose concavity 
is constantly filled with dirt, and presents so 
rough a surface to the pavement as to prevent 
slipping.—Powell’s patent shoe was invented for 
the same purpose as Rodway’s, but presents a 
sharp surface to the pavement.—If horses had 
constantly to tread such surfaces as those of 
wooden pavements, they might go without shoes 
altogether, and enjoy more ease and safety than 
with the very best shoes which can possibly be 
contrived. 
The shoes of any common kind for the hind 
feet are stouter at the toe and straighter at the 
quarters, than those for the fore feet, and, in gen- 
eral, have also the heels turned up to form cal- 
kins.—The common hunter’s shoe is cut consi- 
derably shorter at the heels, and allows less, 
intervening space between its seat and the foot, 
than the ordinary seated shoe.—The three-quar- 
ter shoe wants the inner heel or quarter, and 
is suitable for a horse when turned out to grass, 
or otherwise withdrawn from treading a hard 
surface.—The tip shoe wants both heels, and is 
used for the same purpose as the three-quarter 
shoe, and was formerly used also for racers, but 
has been superseded in the latter application by 
a light shoe called a plate. | 
- The French method of shoeing has long been 
much extolled by some British veterinarians ; 
and, in some respects, with reason enough,—in 
others, more, it would appear, for the sake of 
fashion and novelty than real advantage. The 
French shoe is rather broader in the web than 
the old English one; it is equally thick at every 
part; the foot-surface of it is concave, the 
ground-surface convex, and curved upwards at 
the toe, in order to give the limb, what the 
French call “the adjusting balance.’ Alto- 
gether, the shoe itself is certainly, in many re- 
spects, an objectionable structure ; and in no 
respect is it more so than in the curvature 
which is given to the toe of it, the principle of 
which is false, unnatural, and injurious. The 
French mode of nailing the shoes upon the feet, 
however, is one deserving attention, both from 
the facility with which it is practised, and from 
the preservation which it affords to weak, brit- 
tle hoofs, which, by our method, are too fre- 
quently done injury to. The holes in the French 
shoe are punched in that direction which (in- 
stead of penetrating the crust longitudinally—in 
the direction of the fibres of the wall, as is the 
case in English nailing) gives the nails an oblique 
direction, forward as well as upward, by which 
they not only get a stronger hold, but a more 
secure one, and are more certain in their issue, 
oes 
SHOEING. 
—their points making their exit but a little 
way above the shoe itself; and this method of 
nailing is not confined to the French, but pre- 
vails over all the Continent. 
The Persian, Turkish, and Arabian shoes, bear 
a common resemblance to one another. A horse- 
shoe of these countries consists of a thin plate of 
iron, which is said to be hammered into form 
without being heated. It has a small circular 
hole in the middle, but for which it would en- 
tirely cover the lower surface of the hoof. The 
outer surrounding border forms a projecting 
edge downwards; and along its inner circle are 
eight nails, ranged in fours, laterally, and rather 
near to one another. The shoe also has a curya- 
ture both at toe and heel—The Barbary shoe 
differs but little, and very unimportantly, from 
the Asian productions. The striking character 
of it is, that the hole in the middle, instead of 
being circular, is triangular.—The bar-shoe seems 
to have been formed on the type of the Asian 
shoes, but is used in Britain only in cases of 
disease. See the article Bar-SuHor. 
The comparative weight and size of shoes are 
of fully as much importance as their form, and 
ought to be as nicely adapted as possible to the 
strength, bulk, character, and work of the horse. 
A weak foot should never wear a heavy shoe; a 
small foot should never wear a large one; a 
horse on light work or constantly on soft ground 
should never wear as heavy a one as the same 
horse on severe work or constantly on hard 
ground; a horse with peculiarly shaped feet 
should never wear one of the ordinary or nor- 
mal shape, unadapted to the specialities in the 
foot’s configuration; and a horse of compara- 
tively rapid motion and slight performance | 
should never wear as heavy a one as a horse of. 
comparatively slow motion and laboured per- | 
According to the estimate of Profes- _ 
sor Coleman, the shoe of a large draught horse, | 
on the average, should weigh 2 lb. 10 oz., that of | 
a small draught horse 1 lb. 10 oz., that of a large | 
coach horse 1 lb. 10 oz., that of a small coach | 
formance. 
horse 1 lb. 4 0z., that of a saddle horse 1 lb. 4 oz., 
and that of a racing horse 5 oz. 
The mode of putting on the shoe, and particu- 
larly the proper paring of the hoof for its recep- 
tion, are also of as much importance as its form. 
“Many,” says White, “ have attended chiefly to 
the form of the shoe, and not to its application, 
or to the hoof; and this error has done more 
mischief, and made more enemies to the Veter- 
inary College, than all the prejudices and calum- 
nies of grooms and farriers. The first thing to be 
attended to is to take away, with the butteris, a 
portion of the sole between the whole length of the 
bars and crust with a drawing knife; for the heels 
of the sole cannot receive pressure without corns. 
To avoid this, the soles should be made concave, 
so as not to be in contact with the shoe. If 
there be any one part of shoeing more important 
than the rest, it is this removal of the horn be- 
oe 2 
