down to the level of the shoe, which in the healthy foot should not vary from the heel to the toe.

The width of the shoe will depend on that of the foot. The general rule is that it should protect the sole from injury, and be as wide at the heel as the frog will permit.

The upper surface of the shoe should be differently formed. It should be flat along the upper end, outer supporting the crust, or, in other words, the weight of the horse, and widest at the heel, so as to meet and withstand the shock of the bars and the crust. The inner portion of the shoe should be beveled off, in order that, in the descent of the sole, that part of the foot may not be bruised. The owner of the horse should occasionally be present when the shoes are removed, and he will be too often surprised to see how far the smith, almost wilfully, deviates from the right construction of this apparently simple apparatus. The beveled shoe is a little more troublesome to make and to apply than that which is often used by the village smith, but it will be the owner's fault if his directions are not implicitly obeyed.

Even at the commencement of the operation of shoeing the eye of the master or the trustworthy groom will be requisite. The shoe is often torn from the foot in a most violent and cruel way. Scarcely half the clenches are raised when the smith seizes the shoe with his pincers, and forcibly wrenches it off. The shrinking of the horse will tell how much he suffers, and the fragments of the crust will also afford sufficient proofs of the mischief that has been done, especially when it is recollected that every nail-hole is enlarged by this brutal force, and the future safety of the shoe to a greater or less degree weakened, and pieces of the nail are sometimes left in the substance of the crust, which become the cause of future disease.

In the paring out of the foot, also, there is frequently great mischief done. The formidable butteris is still often found in the smithy of the country farrier, although it is banished from the practice of every respectable operator. A worse evil, however, remains. By the butteris much of the sole was injuriously removed, and the foot was occasionally weakened, but the drawing-knife frequently left a portion of sole sufficient to destroy the elasticity of the foot, and to lay the foundation for contraction, corns, and permanent lameness. One object then of the looker-on is to ascertain the actual state of the foot. On the descent of the crust, when the foot is placed on the ground, depends the elasticity and healthy state of the foot, and that may be satisfactorily determined by the yielding of the sole, although to a very slight degree, when it is strongly pressed upon with the thumb. The sole being pared out, the crust on each side may be lowered, but never reduced to a level with the sole, otherwise this portion will be exposed to continual injury.

The heels often suffer considerably from the carelessness or ignorance of the smith. The weight of the horse is not thrown equably on them, but considerably more on the inner than the outer quarter. The consequence of this is that the inner heel is worn down more than the outer, and the foundation is laid for tenderness and ulceration. The smith is too often inattentive to this, and pares away an equal quantity of horn from the inner and outer heel, leaving the former weaker and lower, and less able to support the weight thrown upon it.

Mention has already been made of the use of the bars in admitting and yet limiting to its proper extent the expansion of the foot. The smith in the majority of country forges, and in too many of those that disgrace the metropolis, seems to have waged interminable war with these portions of the foot, and avails himself of every opportunity to pare them down, or perfectly destroy them, forgetting, or never having learned, that the destruction of the bars necessarily leads to contraction by removing the chief impediment to it.

The horn between the crust and the bar should be well pared out. Every one accustomed to horses must have observed the great relief that is given to the horse with corns when this angle is pared out, and yet, from some fatality, the smith

rarely leaves it where nature placed it, but cuts away every portion of it.

The true function of the frog is easily understood. It gives security to the tread, and contributes to the expansion of the heels; but the smith, although these cases come before him every day, seems to be quite unaware of the course which he should pursue, and either leaves the frog almost untouched, and then it becomes bruised and injured, or he pares it away so that it cannot come into contact with the ground, and consequently is not enabled to do its duty.

The owner of the horse will therefore find it his interest occasionally to visit the forge, and, guided by the simple principles which have been stated, he will seldom err in his opinion of what is going forward there. He should impress two principles deeply on his mind, that a great deal more depends on the paring out of the foot than in the construction of the shoe that few shoes, except they press upon the sole, or are made shamefully bad, will lame the horse, but that he may be very easily lamed by an ignorant or improper. paring out of the foot.

Where the owner of the horse has sufficient influence with the smith, he will find it advisable always to have a few sets of shoes ready made. Much time will be saved, in case of accident, and there will not be, as is too often the case, the cutting and paring and injuring of the foot, in order to make it fit the shoe. More injury than would be readily believed is done to the foot by contriving to get on it too small a shoe.

Clips are often necessary, in order more securely to fasten the shoe. They are little portions of the upper edge of the shoe hammered out, and turned up on the crust, and fitted in a little depression made in the crust. They prevent the shoe from being loosened or torn off, both in rapid action and heavy draught, and are therefore used on all heavy, and on many light horses. They are sometimes placed on the side of the shoe, and at the beginning of the quarters, and on all horses that are accustomed to paw violently with their feet. Necessity alone, however, will justify their use.

The calkin is a prolongation and turning down of the shoe at the heel, enabling the animal to dig his toe more firmly into the ground, and with more advantage throw his weight into the collar; but it is an abominable and most injudicious practice to place the calkin on one side alone, as is too often done: an unequal direction and distribution of the weight and bearing of the foot is often given, which is necessarily productive of mischief. Few are the cases which will justify the use of calkins on the fore feet, or even on the hind feet, except they are of equal height on each foot, and few things are more injurious to the foot of the horse than wearing the same shoe more than three weeks or a month, let the work be heavy or light. The shoe should never be heavier than the work absolutely requires. This is acknowledged in the shoe of the hunter and the racer, and will tell in every horse after a hard day's work.

The bar-shoe is indispensable in every large stable. It is a very simple contrivance, being nothing more than the continuation of the common shoe over the heels. The bearing of the shoe may thus be taken off from every weak and tender part of the foot, and be either thrown on some other point which is better able to bear the pressure, or diffused over the foot. It is indispensable in cases of bad corns, which are thus protected from injury'; in sand-crack, the pressure may be removed from either or both sides of the fissure; pumiced feet may be raised by this shoe above the possibility of injury; and in thrush and in canker not only is the weight thrown off the diseased part, but any kind of dressing may be easily retained on the sore. It is a shoe, however, that cannot be safely used for any considerable time, or, at least, it requires occasional or even frequent change, on account of its being gradually pressed down on the sore part beneath. Bar-shoes are not safe for use when much speed is required, and they are dangerous when frost is on the ground.

The tip is a very different kind of shoe. It reaches but half round the crust. It is used when the horse is at grass; and,

the quarters of this shoe being unfettered, the contracted foot is sometimes enabled to regain its natural open state. It has been tried for road-work, but, as might naturally be expected, it utterly failed when often or long used.

The leather shoe is principally or only useful when the foot has been injured or inflamed. It, to a considerable degree, breaks the shock, which would otherwise be painfully felt when the foot is put on the ground. It consists of a piece of leather or felt, about an inch in width, whsch is placed between the crust and the shoe, and this very materially obviates concussion. It must not, however, be long worn, for the nails cannot always be driven securely, or there will be too much play upon them, or they will become loosened, and the holes which they accurately filled at first will be enlarged, and the crust will be broken away.

The sole is sometimes entirely covered with leather. This furnishes a temporary defence for the foot, but there is much insecurity of fastening-the tow or other dressing introduced between the sole and the leather, is not always equably distributed, and frequently the stopping produces a scaly spongy horn, or gravel and dirt will gradually accumulate between the leather and the horn, and the foot will be considerably injured. One other shoe, the invention of Mr. Percival, must be mentioned,-the horse-sandal. It consists of a simple apparatus sufficiently light to be carried in the pocket, and which, on the loss of a shoe, can be applied to the foot in the space of a minute, and so securely attached to it that the sportsman may continue the chase to the end of the longest run. The same sandal has been repeatedly worn more than 100 miles. It may be procured from any respectable harness-maker.

EVERY individual member of the British community is affected, either directly or indirectly, by the operations of the National Debt. It is therefore desirable that every one should be enabled to form a clear conception regarding it.

Nature of the National Debt.

It is not easy to account for the erroneous ideas commonly entertained as to the nature of this debt by many persons, who consider it as a deposit or treasure, and a sign of national wealth. Many among those whose means of political knowledge have been circumscribed imagine that, when they purchase a certain amount of stock, they are adding their mite to a huge store of already accumulated wealth; and when, to use a common expression, they have "put their money into the Bank," they are far from conceiving that they have in fact only been substituting themselves for others as national creditors, and must depend for the punctual payment of their dividends, not upon any fund or treasure that exists, but upon the ability of the whole nation to pay them their dividends out of the productive labour of the whole nation, including themselves.

The term "Funds," it is true, is not a happy one for the thing which it is in this case employed to designate. What should we think of an individual in common life calling his debts his funds? Perhaps, after a little reflection, such a person will admit that the wealth can hardly be wealth belonging to the state, which really seems to be the party that owes the money; for no man has imagination enough to continue long to believe seriously that either individual or community can be the richer for being very much in debt. Still, the notion that the funds are wealth has not yet been driven altogether out of his head. If they are not wealth to the state, he will tell you, they are wealth to the creditors of the state-to the fundholders, as they are called; and these being nearly all part of the community, is not the community really richer because of this their wealth?

This is much the same as the reasoning of the Irishman whom the thought suddenly struck of reducing the labour of two persons performing a journey together on foot to half the usual amount by mounting the one upon the other's back. "To be sure it won't relieve both of us at the same time," said he to his friend, "but one at least may give his legs a holiday, if the other must keep tramping; and we can take the ride by turns." The misfortune is that, in these cases, the holiday to the legs of the one partner in the project is anything but a holiday to the back of the other. Upon the whole, therefore, at the end of the experiment, nothing is gained. As for the wealth of the fundholders, it consists entirely in a right which belongs to them of sharing, to a certain extent, in the annual proceeds of the wealth and labour of the rest of the community, including themselves. It resembles the case of any other debtor and his creditor. The right of the latter (so long as his interest is duly paid, and his principal is considered to be safe) is, no doubt, so much wealth to him; but it is precisely an equal subtraction of wealth from the former. The two together are not richer on account of the peculiar relation in which they stand to each other. There is not more wealth between them because there is a debt between them. So the nation, as a whole, is not richer for owing to a portion of its members several hundreds of millions of pounds sterling, notwithstanding that the said members are, no doubt, the richer

No. 14.

for having this claim upon the nation. To the exact extent that they are richer, the rest of the community, including themselves, are poorer. Their incomes are simply an incumbrance or burden upon the incomes of the whole community, as appears by the fact that a sum of not much less than twentyeight millions of pounds sterling is every year raised from the nation for no other purpose except to pay the interest upon the debt which the nation owes.

Well, then, our objector will perhaps still say, the money, at any rate, is neither thrown away, nor does it pass out of our own hands. At most there is merely a transference of a portion of the national income from one part of the community to another. Not a farthing is lost: if some are made poorer, others are made just as much richer than they otherwise would be, by what takes place. Where, then, lies the evil of the national debt when the whole case is taken into view?

come.

The whole case is not taken into view in this reasoning. The evil of the national debt does not lie in its having produced a state of things in which the whole community is largely indebted to a part of the community, and is bound every year to pay to that part a share of its earnings or its inFor anything that appears, this may be in itself a perfectly unobjectionable or a very expedient state of things. It is what must exist to a large extent in every country abounding in capital; and among ourselves, out of the range of the national debt altogether, it is the express purpose of many of our commercial arrangements to bring about and to extend such a state of things; nor could many of our most important commercial speculations be carried on without it. Whenever any man in business has the use of any portion of capital which does not belong to himself, and for which he pays interest, he is contributing to uphold this state of things, and availing himself of its advantages. And it is, no doubt, generally speaking, in the highest degree beneficial for all parties that he should do so. Much capital would otherwise remain altogether unemployed and useless, both to its possessors and to the community; and not only much capital, but much also of the best ability, ingenuity, and capacity for active and efficient industry, that exists in the nation. All commercial associations, such as banking companies, insurance companies, canal and railroad companies, and others that either trade or carry on any particular undertaking with money subscribed or deposited in their hands by individuals, are instances of the operation of the same system. In all these cases the owners of capital lend it to others, who in turn pay them interest for the use of it; and the arrangement is manifestly both a convenient one for the two parties more immediately concerned, and also of great public advantage. How large an amount altogether may thus be paid in this country every year in the form of interest upon loans, dividends upon shares, profits upon investments, annuities, and other returns for capital lent or subscribed, or, in other words, what portion of the annual earnings of those members of the community actively engaged in business is regularly transferred under the effect of such arrangements to those not so engaged, there are no means of ascertaining; but undoubtedly it must be very great.

In the mere state of things, therefore, we repeat, which occasions such a transfer of the proceeds of industry from one part of the community to another, there is not necessarily any evil. On the contrary, it may be the most advantageous and healthy state of things that can exist. The evil of the national debt

P

lies in another consideration altogether. It lies in that peculiarity which, constitutes the very essence of the funding system, and distinguishes it from all ordinary borrowing-that the money borrowed has been all spent, and is gone; that is, it has not been used as money borrowed by individuals or associations of individuals is used-that is, for the purpose of profitable employment to the borrowers. A company associated for carrying on some commercial speculation pays dividends to its shareholders; but the capital subscribed is actually in existence; its productive powers are in constant operation for the supply of the demands which the company has to meet. Were it otherwise, the concern could not go on. But, of the immense amount of money borrowed by the nation, and for which it has to pay interest to the lenders, it retains not one farthing. It is paying all this interest out of other capital altogether-out of capital which it would have had as well if there had been no national debt, and which, in that case, it would have had free and unincumbered. On the other hand, if the national debt had never been created, the creditors of the state would have also had all the capital which they have lent to Government in their own hands, and it would of course have been productive to them invested in some other way.

The case would be a very different one if the money borrowed by the nation had really been turned into a fund, as the language commonly used would imply. Then, no doubt, the interest might have been paid without the nation being thereby subjected to any real burden. But the money has always been spent as fast as it has been received, and frequently even before it has been actually collected. Whatever other useful or necessary ends it may have accomplished, it has no more gone to form anything like a fund, in the proper sense of that term, than if it had been cast into the sea.

There are, certainly, other considerations to be looked to besides those to which we have been adverting, before we are in a condition for finally pronouncing upon the whole question of the operation and effects, direct and indirect, in so far as regards the national wealth, of the existence of the national debt. There are, for instance, to be taken into account the amount and value of the employment given and the stimulus applied to the national industry, even by an expenditure on the part of the Government which was in no degree regulated by any views of commercial profit. There is also to be determined the very difficult question of the whole effects upon prices, and upon the operations of trade and commerce generally, produced by the vast amount of Government securities constantly circulating in the money-market, and performing, at least to a certain extent, the functions of a common medium of exchange. These, however, are inquiries we have nothing to do with in the prosecution of our present design, which is merely to explain what the funds really are, and to clear away certain misconceptions or confused notions respecting their nature which the name they are usually called by has a tendency to generate, and which are perhaps more widely prevalent than many persons would suppose.

Certain persons often speak very confidently of the advantage which would result to the nation by wiping out, or "applying a sponge," as it is significantly termed, to the national debt. But such persons speak out of the fulness of their ignorance, and have clearly not considered the question. Others make the more moderate and qualified assertion that the great majority of the nation would be gainers, and that the losers would be comparatively few. But those who contend that the great majority of the nation would be benefited by the unsatisfied extinction of the national debt, and would urge its extinction on this ground, as being precisely the same ground on which many enactments are made, ought to show that the loss occasioned by such extinction will be confined to the immediate losers, to the comparatively small number of public creditors. But it is easy to show that the loss would not be confined to the immediate losers; and this being the case, it is impossible to prove that such extinction will really benefit a great majority. It might happen that it would in its results benefit only a small

minority of the actual generation, or even nobody at all; and the allegation of this possible result is a sufficient answer to the assumption made by the advocates of unsatisfied extinction, that the loss incurred would be confined to the immediate losers, and that there would be a real gain to the great majority of the nation. Such an unsatisfied extinction would in effect be a dissolution of innumerable contracts, on the faithful performance of which depends the happiness of many thousands who are not public creditors. It is hardly necessary to remark that the nation would not afterwards find it easy to borrow money from individuals on any reasonable terms for any purpose, however generally useful, or any public necessity, however urgent.

History of the National Debt.

The national debt of this country dates from the Revolution of 1688, although what we now understand by the funding system did not take its commencement till a considerable time after that event. All our old kings had been in the habit of occasionally borrowing money at moments of exigency, but never with any view of creating a permanent national debt. They borrowed, as private individuals still do, with the purpose of repaying the money within a limited time, or as soon as they should be able to do so, and under an engagement to that effect. The loan indeed was commonly sought and obtained in express anticipation of certain revenues, which, as soon as they should have become due, and been collected, were to be applied to its discharge. King William III. likewise at first proceeded in the same manner. Sums of money were, from time to time, borrowed by the crown in anticipation of the produce of the taxes which had been voted by parliament; and several partial repayments of the sums thus borrowed were made. The transaction took place, as heretofore, under the sole authority of the crown. But even the first loans that were obtained for the national service under the sanction of parliament were of the same description. In the speech with which he opened his second parliament, in March 1690, King William said "I have so great a confidence in you, that, if no quicker or more convenient way can be found for the raising of ready money (without which the service [of the war in Ireland] cannot be performed), I shall be very well content for the present to have it made such a fund of credit as may be useful to yourselves, as well as to me, in this conjuncture; not having the apprehension but that you will provide for the taking off all such anticipations as it shall happen to fall under." In conformity with this recommendation, the parliament very soon after passed two acts, by which they provided for the raising of two sums of 250,000l. and 500,000l. by loan; but it was also enacted that the money should be repaid within three years, and certain branches of revenue were expressly set apart for that purpose. It is worthy of remark that, at this time, the term funds was applied in its proper sense, not to the money borrowed, but to the revenues thus appropriated or mortgaged for its repayment.

"In these acts," says a Jacobite writer (Salmon, in his Chronological Historian'), "there were clauses empowering the king to anticipate and borrow money on his revenues, as he had desired in his speech, which was the first beginning of the funds, so destructive to the nation. The advice of his pretended friends was—Borrow what you can; the more you borrow, the more friends you make; interest is a stronger tie than principle. Accordingly, the ministry gave whatever interest and premiums were demanded for the loan of money; and naval stores and provisions were taken up at 30, 40, and sometimes 50 per cent. The moneyed men, and those that could bear stock, doubled and trebled their fortunes in a very short time." Although the acts in question, however, no doubt, led to the adoption of the funding system, they cannot correctly be said to have begun that system. They did not provide for the funding of any debt, in the modern sense of that expression. Nor can even the subsequent act passed in 1693, for the establishment of the Bank of England, by which it was enacted that the Bank should make an advance to Government of