cannot be satisfied unless the frog be finely shaped, the sole pared, the bars cut out, in order to make the heels appear wide. This practice gives them a show of wideness for the time; yet that, together with the concave form of the shoe, forwards the contraction of the heels, which, when confirmed, renders the animal lame for life. In this flat form of shoe its thickest part is upon the outside of the rim, where it is most exposed to be worn; and being made gradually thinner towards its inner edge, it is therefore much lighter than the common concave shoe, yet it will last equally as long, and with more advantage to the hoof; and as the frog and heel is allowed to rest upon the ground, the foot enjoys the same points of support as in its natural state. It must therefore be much easier for the horse in his way of going, and be a means of making him surer-footed. It is likewise evident that from this shoe the hoof cannot acquire any bad form, when at the same time it receives every advantage that possibly could be expected from shoeing. In this respect it may very properly be said that we make the shoe to the foot, and not the foot to the shoe, as is but too much the case in the concave shoes, where the foot very much resembles that of a cat's fixed in a walnut-shell.' 'I would observe, upon the whole, that the less substance we take away from the natural defence of the foot, except on particular occasions which may require it, the less artificial defence will be necessary: the flatter we make the shoe we give the horse the more points of support, and imitate the natural tread of the foot; therefore the nearer we follow these simple rules, the nearer we approach to perfection in this art.'
