of the groom and the blacksmith seems to be that they know better what the horse’s foot should be than the Creator of the animal does, for they are never satisfied until they have altered the natural foot into a form of their own, which they think the right one; and, though lameness usually attends their efforts, they ascribe it to every cause but the right one, and indeed resign themselves complacently to the presence of many diseases confessedly caused by their treatment—perhaps, because these diseases do not hurt their own sacred persons! It is really curious to observe all that has been written about the horse’s foot—the sort of follow-my-leader principle, which is more evident here than in writing on any other subject with which I am acquainted. Very, very seldom is an original idea to be found, and still more seldom an original idea that is not marred by some adherence to the old grooves to which preceding authors have confined themselves.’ ‘Impecuniosus’ writes well, and makes many good remarks, as we shall see further on; but the writer is also obliged to differ from him in some things, as he is, indeed, obliged to differ with all the authorities he quotes. As Baucher said, ‘Si je n’avais rien à dire de nouveau, je ne prendrais pas la peine d’écrire;’ and it is with the intention of offering some original remarks that he has undertaken the present arduous and responsible task, even in the face of the following words from ‘Impecuniosus:’ ‘Every innovation is not reform, and this remark applies specially to stable practice; but any real
