being unmercifully trenched upon to imbed the clumsy mass of iron as deeply as need be to bring the sometimes shrunken frogs on a level with the lower face of the shoe. The middle of the sole was certainly not pared, but that portion which nature intended should be thickest and strongest, was reduced to a thin pellicle on which the rigid iron was laid. A small hand-saw was employed to open up the heels. The shoes were being fitted cold (though I am informed they have been fitted while at a dark red heat), and consequently, in every respect, the foot was made to fit the shoe, and the sole and crust had to suffer the penalty of the frog reaching the ground. The foot, altogether, was treated as if it were only a block of wood, to be cut and carved into a particular model, and without any regard whatever to its anatomy, functions, or sensibility. It was, certainly, no improvement on the commonest method of shoeing in England.
The most absurd statements were, of course, circulated with regard to the merits of this method. In quoting from the newspaper article, we have noticed some of these pretentious claims, for which there was not the slightest foundation in fact. It was advertised as the 'humane horse-shoe;' and these advertisements asserted that it was 'the only horse-shoe which obeys the laws of nature in its construction, and is shaped as nearly in conformity with the natural foot as scientific knowledge and skilful labour can produce!' No pains were spared to make a good speculation of the wonderful new invention; every public announcement of its merits seemed to be written by the same hand that had penned the first tribute of admiration, and recommended this sharp-studded weapon for the
