This authority concludes, that whether the preplantar system of shoeing succeed, or, like so many other systems, fail, its inventor had none the less done good service, in showing what was vicious in the present mode of French shoeing, and how easy it was to benefit horses by making their shoes lighter; already, the opponents of the new method were beginning to see the advantage of reducing the metallic surface, and that this narrowing of the shoes was entirely due to the example given by M. Charlier.
Professor Bouley was, perhaps, not aware of what had been done in England, in this respect; and that in this century M. Charlier's modification had been largely anticipated. Goodwin and Fitzwygram had demonstrated the necessity for leaving the soles unpared, and had conclusively shown that these parts would, to a certain extent, sustain pressure from the shoe. Coleman, Gloag, and others, had shown that the frogs could only be maintained in a healthy condition by performing their natural functions; Turner, Miles, and Fitzwygram had proved that shoes could be retained by a comparatively small number of nails; and Moorcroft and Mavor, that narrow shoes were advantageous in preventing slipping.
Another good result of this method of shoeing in France, was to enlighten the veterinary profession and the farriers of that country, with regard to the pernicious cradle-like shape they gave to their clumsy shoes, in what they termed the ajusture. This unseemly, and apparently unreasonable, fashion had been maintained and strenuously defended since the days of Bourgelat; and its effects must have been very prejudicial, especially when improperly applied. The plane-surfaced preplantar shoe
