Criticised in this way, is the operation of neurectomy justifiable?  Upon that point the opinions of many practitioners, even at the present day, differ.  We have already partly answered the objections likely to be raised on this score by stating that the work afterwards allotted the animal should be fixed to suit his altered condition.  It may be taken as a general rule that in all cases where the animal’s usefulness depends upon his delicacy of touch, as, for example, animals used solely for hacking or hunting, his future usefulness in that special sphere of work will be done away with.

Percival himself, always a strong advocate for the operation, fully recognises this.  ’Does the neurotomized horse maintain the same step as before?’ he asks.  ‘To this important question,’ he replies, ’I unhesitatingly answer no; he does not.  There can be no doubt but that the horse feels the ground upon which he is treading, and that he regulates his action in consonance with such feeling, so as to render his step the least jarring and fatiguing to himself, and therefore the easiest and pleasantest to his rider....  Such impressions’—­those of touch—­’being in the neurotomized subject, so far as regards the feeling of the foot, altogether wanting, a bold, fearless projection of the limb in action will be the consequence, followed by a putting down of the hoof flat upon the ground, as though it were a block, creating a sensation alike unpleasant both to horse and rider.’

Emphatic as Percival is upon this point, there are, nevertheless, others who maintain with equal stoutness that the unnerved animal is positively as safe, if not safer, than the animal who has not been so treated.

’That the tactile sense in the horse’s foot is useful, it would be idle to deny; but that it is absolutely essential, even to safe progression, no one who has paid attention to the results of plantar neurectomy will maintain.  On several occasions for years I have hunted, hacked, and driven horses which have been deprived of sensation in their fore-feet, and never had an accident with them.  Their action has not been impaired by the operation; on the contrary, it has been vastly improved compared with what it had been previous to it.  And my opinion has not been single in this respect, as many competent horsemen can give like evidence after long and severe trials of neurotomized horses.  The opponents of neurotomy were, probably, not aware that there is in progression a muscular as well as a tactile sense.’

This latter contention is supported by numerous cases, reported at the time when the operation of neurectomy was at the heyday of its popularity.  Two I select from writings of a later period: