Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/558

 The best work produced at this period was undoubtedly that of Mr Goodwin, veterinary surgeon to King George IV. It is written in a fair and scientific spirit, and gives an excellent resume of the merits and demerits of the various systems of shoeing then in vogue. With regard to the different kinds of shoes in use, he discovers faults in the seated, jointed, thin-heeled, and common shoe, which forbade his recommending them for general purposes. The French mode of shoeing, which was Bourgelat's, came nearest to his standard of superiority, yet he had two objections to this system in general: 'the convex form of the shoe on the ground side, and the concave form on the foot side. I object to the first, because the horse is by no means so safe or secure on his feet, more particularly when going over stones.' The second objection was that offered by the older writers to the common English bowl, or quoit-shaped, shoe. His new system appears to have been similar to that recommended by Professor St Bel, so far as the ground surface of the shoe was concerned. 'In the shoe I have adopted, I have reversed the form on each side (speaking of the French pattern), making it concave on the ground surface, and convex on the foot surface, with an inclination from the inner to the outer rim (figs. 194, 195). To effect this form on each side, it is necessary that the shoe should be sloped or bevelled on the ground side, from the outward to the inward part all round the shoe, except about an inch and a half at the heels. To accomplish this inclination on the foot side, it is necessary to thicken the inner part at the heels, as far as the flat