As this gentleman owns a number of horses, the question must be of considerable pecuniary importance to him; and if, by an indiscreet step, he had injured his horse, he would have been likely to become disgusted, and have desisted, and so have thrown away a chance of benefiting his whole stable; and, besides, the farrier would have turned the laugh, which he got up at the mere idea of such a thing, unpleasantly against him. It is to be hoped that he will do a little less at the next trial, and then he will not find his horse ‘going tender.’
A gentleman writes privately: ‘I once rode a hack for six weeks, in comparatively dry weather, with only tips, the heels being quite bare. The heels grew and expanded as you describe, and nothing could be pleasanter to horse and rider; but no sooner did a wet time set in than I was obliged to revert to the full shoe—at least, I thought so.’ (!) The naïveté herein apparent could hardly be surpassed. This gentleman received the highest education that England affords, and took his degree. No one can ‘spot’ him, so there is no breach of confidence in divulging the fact that he is a clergyman of the Church of England. Yet even a man of this calibre was not proof against a popular delusion.
To come back again on the question of shoeing ‘hot’ or ‘cold,’ which ‘Aberlorna’ has revived. It is well known that thereon veterinary surgeons differ. In these articles one veterinary surgeon has been cited who was intensely opposed to hot shoeing; as also an American ‘practical horse-shoer,’ the author
