see the system it explains so highly advocated by an authority like Mr. Fearnley. Why should societies feel so inclined to revert to anything they can lay hold of that carries them back to what we may call the infancy of the art of shoeing? The reason is that they are disgusted with the results of the present system, and so they are always on the lookout for ‘any port in a storm.’ There is a haven open for them at an easy distance, and with wind and tide in their favour. Although they still prefer beating to windward, they will tire out in time. They are evidently in want of smooth water at the present moment. Let them therefore put back. There is no cowardice in so doing when they find that they really cannot weather the storm.
Before concluding, there is yet another question which demands a high consideration in many points of view. It has been long maintained that many diseases are transmissible by sires and dams (either or both) to their progeny. Not to go farther back than the last month or two, the columns of contemporaries have teemed with opinions on this subject, many of them emanating from acknowledged authorities, amongst whom are to be found managers and secretaries of horse shows, in which progenitors have their special classes. It has been urged that if all those who were not free from those physical defects which are considered as hereditary were objected to, there would scarcely be a competition, on account of the number of disqualifications. It appears right, however, that only perfect animals
