which greatly increases that of both, upon the bones of the foot; these are jammed with immense violence into the hoof, both sides of which are so fettered that neither can yield to make room for them, and they consequently squeeze the exquisitely sensitive lining of the hoof between their own hard substance, the unyielding horn, and the shanks of one, two, or three nails, as the case may be, in a merciless manner.’
Mr. Miles had, as we have already seen, proved by clever experiments that expansion and contraction positively do exist to a very marked extent in the horse’s foot; and it is now universally recognised, in England, at least, that such is the case. To allow them scope, he inserted nails in the shoe on the outside only of the hoof, and used but few nails even at that. The shoe was found to remain on, and the foot to be benefited, and he thus made an improvement; but no one followed it up, although veterinary surgeons said he was right. How is this to be accounted for, any more than the failure of ‘Impecuniosus’ to make an impression? because people cannot be induced to care for, or think of, their horses any longer than whilst they are on their backs. Both of these gentlemen, although without being aware of it, were precursors of the non-shoeing system, as may be seen by their gradual, although only partial and tardy, reduction of iron, in the number of nails and the size, form, and weight of shoe. Iron was still their stumbling-block, as it will continue to be that of all who uphold its use. It cannot, in any shape, be used to full advantage.
