CHAPTER XII.

SUBJECT OF FEEDING RESUMED.--COOKED FOOD RECOMMENDED.--EFFECTS OF

RAW OATS UPON "PLEADER."--SERVANTS' OBJECTIONS.--SNAFFLE-BRIDLE, AND

BIT-AND-BRIDOON.--KINDNESS TO THE POOR.--AN UNSYMPATHETIC LADY.--AN

UNGALLANT CAPTAIN.--WHAT IS A GENTLEMAN?--_AU REVOIR!_

My remarks upon the subject of feeding horses, having gained publicity

through the columns of the press, have called forth much comment and

adverse criticism. Some have evidently considered--and have not

hesitated to say--that I have written the veriest twaddle; but happily

there is a reverse side to the picture, and many (including one very

august personage indeed) have expressed a determination to adopt my

system. Beans are such excellent feeding that I cannot object to an

admixture of them, and to most English horses they are almost a

necessity; but in Ireland we care little about them. It is unwise to

give too much hay. I said "abundance" on a former page, but the word,

as I used it, did not signify a large quantity. For horses fed three

times daily upon a plentiful measure of oats, crushed Indian corn, and

beans if desired, a few handfuls of hay will be amply sufficient, and

this should be placed where the horse can stoop to it, but never above

him, as in the effort to disengage it from the rack the seeds fall in

his eyes and produce irritation, and sometimes permanent disease.

A bran-mash on a Saturday night, or after a hard day, forms an

admirable variety to the ordinary feeding routine. Let the bran be

thoroughly well steeped and mixed, and a portion of cooked oats or

chopped carrots intermingled with it. This will induce almost any

animal to partake of the bran, from which otherwise many delicate

feeders will resolutely turn.

I have strongly recommended cooked feeding, even against the uproar of

a general outcry against it, because I have seen and proved its

efficacy. Last November, on the first Tuesday in the month--the opening

day with the Kildare hounds--we had a splendid run, during which,

however, I was amazed to find that my great horse, Pleader, sweated

heavily--a thing which had never previously been the case. In fact, it

had always been my boast that when other horses were thoroughly done,

mine had not turned a hair; but, on the day in question, he was in a

white lather, and I thought appeared distressed. Upon coming home, and

speaking about it in my stable, I was informed that the boiler was in

some way out of order, and the horses had, unknown to me, been fed upon

uncooked oats during the preceding three days. Had I required any

confirmation of my theory, this circumstance would certainly have

furnished it, and entirely defeats the general supposition that cooked

food renders horses soft.

I have now given the best advice I can upon the subject of feeding, and

I shall not again refer to it, nor to anything connected with the

treatment or stable management of horses, as the subject is an endless

one, everybody entertaining an opinion of his own, which it shall not

be my ambition to upset. What I have said has been in kindness, and

with a view to benefiting both man and beast; but I do not by any means

expect the majority of my readers to coincide in my views. There is a

stolid determination general throughout the world to stick to old

customs and old-fashioned ways and habits, no matter how excellent the

modern ones may be, and so the "horse and mill" go daily round. Masters

object to my system because it involves an outlay in the erecting of a

proper boiler and other necessary adjuncts; servants object to it

because it gives them a little additional trouble. It is far easier to

lounge to the oat-bin, fill a measure from it, and thrust it before the

animal, not caring whether it is rejected or otherwise, than to fetch

the water and fill the boiler and go through the labours of a process

which, in itself exceedingly simple, is made to appear complicated and

laborious by the amount of fuss and discontent which are brought to

bear upon the work. There is an old saying, "If you want a thing well

done, do it yourself"; but, unfortunately, there are some things--and

this is one--which ladies and gentlemen cannot do, and there is no

doubt whatever that servants accustomed to the old style of management

will never willingly adopt the new--unless they belong to that rare and

select and most exclusive _few_ who have their masters' interest

at heart.

Much information has been asked of me relative to the subject of

holding reins. How often shall I say that there is no fixed rule, and

that a method which may look well for park-riding will be totally out

of place in the hunting-field. I have been asked how I hold my own

bridle, and I shall answer that I almost invariably ride with a single

rein, and you can understand my method readily if you will follow me

whilst I endeavour to explain. Take your pocket-handkerchief, pass it

through the back of any ordinary chair, and bring the ends evenly

towards you, holding them for an instant with your right hand, which

must, _pro tem._, represent the buckle. Place your left hand

within the loop thus formed, the little finger resting firmly against

the near-side, about four inches above the right hand; grasp the

opposite side between the forefinger and thumb, left hand (the two

sides of the handkerchief representing the reins); press the off-side

slightly inward with the pressure of your thumb, slipping it entirely

away from the control of the right hand; then bring the near-side,

which still is held loosely by the right, under the thumb of the left,

and hold it firmly. You will thus see that you establish a sort of

"cross rein," and that you have, and are able to maintain, a secure

grip upon either side. By an outward movement or slight turning of the

wrist, accompanied by pressure of the little finger, you will control

your horse upon the near-side of his mouth, whilst by an inward

movement and pressure of the forefinger you will be able to command him

upon the other or off-side. It must be borne in mind that these

movements should be from the wrist _only_, and not from the arm or

shoulder. A good rider will keep the elbows close to the sides, just

drawing the line finely between that pinioned look which is so

disfiguring, and the detestable flapping, like the wings of an unquiet

bird, in which so many riders, both male and female, so frequently

indulge. I have seen ladies, who wished to have an appearance of hard

riding, leaning forward in the saddle and working their elbows in an

unsightly manner, the hands (influenced by the elbows) sawing also, and

the poor horse, with open mouth and straining jaws, staggering along in

distress, fighting his bridle, and presenting altogether a melancholy

spectacle. A firm even seat, elbows close, head erect, and strong

steady hands held _low_--these are the characteristics of a good

and lady-like rider. In going across country put _both_ hands to

your bridle, and keep your horse's head straight and well in hand, but

do not attempt to pull him nor interfere with him at his fences, or you

will undoubtedly come to grief. If you ride with a bit and bridoon my

advice is, ride your horse--even though he be a puller--upon the

snaffle, and keep the curb rein looped over your little finger, hanging

quite loose, yet in such a position that you can if necessary take it

up at a second's notice.

I cannot too often impress upon you the advisability of being

conciliatory and kind in your manner to everybody with whom you may

come in contact. No matter how exalted your rank may be, you can all

the better afford to be courteous to those beneath you. Kind words cost

nothing, and are as balm to the hearer. Many of the lower orders are

quite as much gentry at heart, and far more so, than those who hide

their unworthiness beneath the convenient shadow of a "family tree." I

have been more than once pained upon hunting days by the extreme

contempt and rudeness with which ladies have treated the poor, who have

asked nothing from them save the innocent and inexpensive privilege of

seeing them mount and canter away with the field. It is all very well

to say, "I do not like to be stared at," but even to those who

_most_ dislike it, surely it is worth a little self-sacrifice to

see the undisguised enjoyment and listen to the original observations

of the Irish peasantry, to whom a sight of the hounds--especially when

followed by ladies--is a treat they never care to miss.

I was riding last winter in company with a lady, very noble, very

handsome, very proud. We came up to a branch of a river, upon the brink

of which some country folk had gathered, with the innocent desire of

seeing it jumped. A poor man, very quiet-looking and harmless, was

actually knocked down and immersed in the water by a reckless young

officer, who galloped over him, and went on without even glancing back

at the spot where the poor half-drowned creature stood wringing his

dripping clothing, yet not uttering a syllable of reproach. My

companion roared with laughter, first at the catastrophe, and then at

me for sympathising with the sufferer. "Apologise!" she cried, in a

high key. "_How_ could Captain Dash apologise to a man like that?

It would be different had he been a _gentleman_." I thought so

too, if the meaning of the word "he" had only been reversed; but I said

nothing, and we went on.

A few fields further we came to a terrible obstacle--a high post and

rails, with a deep and yawning ditch upon the landing side. Three or

four of us went at it: the rest turned away and sought the road. I got

over safely, my noble Pleader proving himself, as usual, worthy of my

confidence. Captain Dash came next, safely also; and then my

ill-starred lady friend, whose horse (an inferior timber-jumper)

bungled, and left her completely prostrate upon the wet earth. Never a

pause did Captain Dash make in his onward career, although he glanced

back when he heard her shriek, and, incredible as it may appear, I

thought I saw him smile, for it was ever his saying that ladies had no

business hunting, and always deserved mischance; but the poor man, at

whose immersion she had laughed a few moments before, came running to

her relief, rendered her every assistance in his power, replaced her in

the saddle, expressed regret for her accident, and positively declined

to accept of any remuneration for his services.

Which of these men, think you, was the gentleman? I know what I thought

respecting the question; and I judged that my friend's opinion was

formed as mine, for she now loves and cares the poor, and suffers the

rich to care themselves, as every true-hearted and Christian woman

should; and, moreover, on glancing over a book of my poems which I lent

her some time later, I found a leaf turned down, as though to mark

these lines--

"What is a gentleman? Is it a thing

Decked with a scarf-pin, a chain, and a ring,

Dressed in a suit of immaculate style,

Sporting an eye-glass, a lisp, and a smile?

Talking of operas, concerts, and balls,

Evening assemblies, and afternoon calls,

Sunning himself at "at homes" and bazaars,

Whistling mazurkas, and smoking cigars?

"What is a gentleman? Say, is it one

Boasting of conquests and deeds he has done,

One who unblushingly glories to speak

Things which should call up a flush to his cheek?

One who, whilst railing at actions unjust,

Robs some young heart of its pureness and trust;

Scorns to steal money, or jewels, or wealth,

Thinks it no crime to take honour by stealth?

"What is a gentleman? Is it not one

Knowing instinctively what he should shun,

Speaking no word that could injure or pain,

Spreading no scandal and deep'ning no stain?

One who knows how to put each at his ease,

Striving instinctively always to please;

One who can tell by a glance at your cheek

When to be silent, and when he should speak?

"What is a gentleman? Is it not one

Honestly eating the bread he has won,

Living in uprightness, fearing his God,

Leaving no stain on the path he has trod?

Caring not whether his coat may be old,

Prizing sincerity far above gold,

Recking not whether his hand may be hard,

Stretching it boldly to grasp its reward?

"What is a gentleman? Say, is it birth

Makes a man noble, or adds to his worth?

Is there a family-tree to be had

Shady enough to conceal what is bad?

Seek out the man who has God for his Guide,

Nothing to blush for, and nothing to hide;

Be he a noble, or be he in trade,

_This_ is the Gentleman NATURE has made."

Now, kind reader, farewell. If I have given you instruction, called a

laugh to your lips, or taught you to prize and cherish the priceless

creature which God has generously sent for our enjoyment and our use,

I shall cheerfully lay aside my pen, happy in the conviction that I

have not written in vain.

Yet, shall I say in the song-words,

"_Au revoir. Pas adieu!_"

for we meet again, I trust, soon and often; but the subject upon which

I have been writing has come to an end.

Whilst acknowledging the kindness of my friends, I would desire also

to shake hands with my enemies. Life is short, and so it behoves us to

bear no malice. To those who have unkindly criticised me I offer

freely a forgiving hand and heart. I have never wilfully offended any,

and if my efforts have not come quite up to the standard of excellence

which certain captious critics have set up, I have at least done my

best, and have been careful, in propounding theories which might

appear new and uncommon, to state that such things were according to

my notions, in which, however, I did not expect all persons to

coincide. So long as the world lasts so long will there be differences

of opinion; but it is not because such exist that ill-feeling should

creep in, and Christian charity become a thing of nought. In ancient

days, when the Apostles were upon the earth, these things were as they

are now; yet the Great Example, to whose pure and simple teaching we

all hopefully look, inspired the command, "_Let brotherly love

continue._"

So be it, reader, with you and with me.

PART IV.

HUNTING IN IRELAND.

There is at present a mighty outcry in our poor land. Not against

"battle, murder, and sudden death," landlord-killing, and "Boycotting,"

but against our royal pastime--hunting. The tenant-farmers are

uproarious in their opposition to it; and, with a headstrong

determination which cannot be too strongly condemned, refuse to listen

to the voice of the reasoner. We are but in the beginning of our

season, yet is our prospect marred and our pleasure spoilt by the blind

idiotcy, not of the few, but, unfortunately, of the many.

They have but one cry, "You are ruining our grass-lands!" A more

egregious error could not possibly exist. Is it wilful blindness or

merely the desire to banish landlordism from the country which induces

this senseless outcry? If the latter, there is unhappily every

probability that the outcriers will succeed; if the former, there may

be some hope of ultimately unclosing their sealed eyelids.

A body of horsemen galloping over grassland during the hunting season

can never occasion injury; it is simply an absurdity to endeavour to

maintain a contrary theory. A great friend of mine and a most practical

gentleman, who possesses a large common attached to his grounds, upon

which he can, if desirable, exercise his horses, always prefers doing

so throughout the winter upon his finest grass-land. He maintains, and

correctly, that they do it an immensity of good, and once offered (to

prove the correctness of his judgment) to give the use of the said land

to the colonel of a cavalry regiment stationed in his vicinity--to do

all his work upon throughout the winter months. The offer, after some

demur, was accepted, and proved to be most advantageous to the

land-owner.

Being an enthusiastic follower of the Ward Union stag-hounds, I am

enabled to state that I have galloped with them, in company with at

least two hundred other riders, across the Ward Country and over the

Fairyhouse lands, which are--as is well known--of a singularly wet and

holding nature; and this not once, but many times throughout the

season. Yet, so early as April, at which date the famous Fairyhouse

races take place, no track or footmark can be seen upon the luxuriant

grass. Again, when riding in winter through Phoenix Park, I have been

struck by the state of mud to which it has been reduced through the

frequent galloping of horses over its surface; yet, in summer it grows

the finest grass, and is as smooth as a billiard-table. One day in

June, three years ago, a grand Review was held there in honour of the

Queen's birthday. A terrible shower came down--one of those mighty

floods which can, in a few moments, transform a beauteous green sward

into a hideous mass of unsightly mire and dirt. Those on foot ploughed

patiently through it, sinking ankle-deep at every step; those upon

horseback, myself included, churned it beneath their horses' feet,

until not a trace was visible of the emerald carpet, which, one short

hour before, had afforded firm footing for many thousands of

spectators. Three weeks later, I rode through that park again; the

velvety turf was green and fresh as ever, nor was there visible _one

trace_ of the countless feet which had, as it were, waded over it so

short a time before. The day upon which St. Stephen's Park was, through

the princely generosity of Lord Ardilaun, opened to the public, was

a wet, or at least a damp one, and thousands upon thousands of

roughly-shod feet cut up the grassy sward; yet, in a few brief days, it

was rich and verdant as before. Nor do I think there is in our noble

Phoenix Park a more luxuriant stretch of grass-land than is "the nine

acres" upon which polo players continually assemble.

Having thus, then, endeavoured to prove that the galloping of horses

is in no way injurious to pasture lands, I shall proceed to the

consideration of other matters connected with the subject in question.

If hunting in Ireland were abolished, then indeed might the cries of

her children ascend heavenward, for I know not what would become of

her! The gentry who are now resident landlords, maintaining large and

costly establishments, would migrate to other countries and more

genial climes. Servants would seek in vain for employment.

Boot-makers, clothiers, saddlers, harness-makers, would find no

custom. The farmer would sigh vainly for a price for his corn. Hay and

straw would be a drug in the market. Hunting-lodges would remain

unlet, growing mouldy with time and damp. Butchers, bakers,

poulterers, butter-makers would be alike involved in one common ruin;

for the houses of the gentry would be empty, and desolation would

overspread the land! No buyers then for high-priced hunters and

promising colts, which now command so high a figure; no merging of

grades and mingling of classes in that happy contact which the

hunting-field so well engenders; none of that delicious feeling of

equality which the peer and the peasant seem alike to acknowledge

whilst participating side by side in the dangers and excitement of the

chase. All would be stillness, solitude, and gloom!

Suffer me, then, to implore my countrymen and countrywomen to do all

in their power to promote the pleasures of hunting. It must immensely

benefit even those who do not actually participate in the sport,

inasmuch as it brings rich and poor into happy contact, and causes a

vast amount of money to be circulated, which enriches the pockets of

the poorer classes, and brings grist to many a mill which would

otherwise stand desolate, with disused and motionless wheel. To us who

_do_ participate in it, there is no need for speech. Which of us does

not know the pleasures of preparing for the glorious sport? the early

rousing up from slothful slumber, the anxious outward glance at the

weather, that fitful tyrant which makes or mars our enjoyment; the

donning of hunting garments, the packing of sandwich boxes, the

filling of flasks with whisky, or better, _far_ better, with strong

cold tea; the cheery drive to the meet, the many happy faces assembled

there, the greetings amongst friends, the praisings of the pack, the

trot to the covert, the dashing of the hounds into the gorse, the

sweet music which proclaims that Reynard is at home, the joyous sound

of the "Gone away!" the hurry-scurry to be first and foremost in their

wake, the anathemas hurled against those who are over-riding them, the

tumbling at the fences, the picking up again, the drowning in the

rivers, the fishing out by the wreckers, the maddening excitement of

traversing an intricate country, the wild desire to be in at the

death, the saving of our horses over holding lands, the riding of them

up to their bridles where the going is good, the last mighty effort,

the final fence cleared, and the canter up to where the huntsman is

holding aloft the brush and mask, and the hounds are breaking up their

fox! Who that has ever experienced these joys will be likely to forget

them, or will fail to promote, by every means in his power, so

health-giving and enlivening a sport?

We have one very serious drawback to our hunting in Ireland, and,

indeed, in many other places also--namely, wire fencing. I saw

something of a tragic incident occur last season whilst hunting with

the Meath hounds. We came up to an impassable fence, and all made for

the gate, which was open; but the owner of the land rushed out from

his dwelling, shut it in our faces, and insolently refused to allow us

to pass. Threats and entreaties were alike vain. He called us every

name in the calendar, and consigned us all to a very ugly place, in

language which was certainly not parliamentary. Many of the field

turned off and sought another way, but two or three of the bold ones

charged the gate, and got over, clearing man and all! I and one other

took the fence--a mad proceeding, which gave us both an ugly fall; but

we scrambled up somehow, and succeeded in picking up the hounds. Late

in the evening, whilst hunting another fox, he led us over the same

identical ground, and a hard-riding gentleman, first at this mighty

obstacle, charged it boldly, but, alas, with what a result! The farmer

had, during our absence, run a stiff wire through the fence, which,

catching the horse in the breast, turned him completely over, breaking

the rider's arm, and otherwise severely injuring him. Some members of

the hunt, seeing what had occurred, besieged the offender's dwelling,

and he had an extremely uncomfortable ten minutes. I have heard

persons aver that the man was badly treated, and that he had a perfect

right to wire his fences if he so willed. Undoubtedly he had, if it

were done openly and in such a way that the wiring could be discerned,

but not, by petty treachery, to imperil the safety, if not the lives,

of a large number of persons.

My advice to farmers would be this; wire the fences if necessary; but,

at the commencement of the hunting season, cut away, say twenty yards

of the wiring at the poorest point of the field, and mark the spot

with a pole and flag. Every rider would assuredly make for it as being

the only jumpable place, and at the close of the season a few boys

with five-grained forks would speedily set all to rights; nor can

there be any doubt that the best crop in the field would be on that

particular spot. Allowing even for a moment, for argument's sake, that

expense, trouble, or loss might be thus occasioned, there is not a

master of hounds in all Ireland--neither, I fancy, in any other

country--who would not willingly and cheerfully indemnify the owner of

the land. But so long as the world lasts, so long will there be

blindness; and until the "happy hunting-grounds" are reached, horses

and horsemen will be daily anathematised by the self-willed

cultivators of our native soil.

PART V.

HUNTING IN AMERICA.

There is a great land across the Atlantic where they do great things,

and utter great sayings, and patent great inventions, and erect great

buildings--and where, in short, the inhabitants beat us (as they

themselves say) "all to fits!"

A mighty nation they are, too--God prosper them as they deserve; but

there is one thing at least in which we can say, without boasting, we

are able to beat them, and that is, in our hunting. A fox-hunt in

America is a very tame and inglorious proceeding, and one which

decidedly would not come under our definition of "sport."

American hunting differs in the first instance from ours, inasmuch as

it is always a summer pastime. The extreme severity of the winters

necessitates this, as during the cold season neither men nor horses

can work.

The disadvantages of summer hunting are of course numerous. The heat

is excessive, and the crops are in the ground. Most of the American

farmers and graziers own their land, and the greater number of them

will not suffer hoofs to cross it. This is partly from a spirit of

surly independence--partly from an ignorant determination to hold with

stolid obstinacy to that most erroneous belief, that the galloping of

horses is injurious to grass-lands. But, anyhow, the objection exists;

and as it is vain to attempt to overrule it, a compromise is effected

between hunting under difficulties and not hunting at all.

The system pursued is this. A man--usually a stout-limbed peasant--is

sent out, who drags an aniseeded bag across country, and over the

lands and fences of such as will permit it, or who are themselves in

the habit of joining in the chase. Then, when the field has assembled,

the hounds are laid on, and work their way after the drag, a "bag-man"

being provided to blood them at the finish. Sometimes the pack comes

too close upon the dragger, and then a nasty scene ensues, which is

pleasanter not described.

Fortunately for men, horses, and hounds, hunting is but little

indulged in throughout America. I mean, of course, fox-hunting, for I

cannot attempt to cry down the many splendid and manly hunts of other

descriptions in which the Americans carry off the palm.

In many parts of the country--more especially in the States--the

people so affect trotting-horses, that the matter has become a craze.

It is a fact, which has more than once been proved, that four legs

capable of carrying any sort of frame a mile in less than

two-and-a-quarter minutes, will easily fetch a thousand pounds; and if

the animal is in condition to repeat the performance several times in

one day, his price will range correspondingly higher.

The usual arrangement--very seldom varied--is that the "trots" shall

be mile heats; and as the horses are, generally speaking, pretty well

done up at the finish, owing to pace, excitement, and temperature,

twenty minutes are allowed between each heat for "cooling off"

purposes.

When a horse is distanced in one of these trials, he is at once

withdrawn; and the judges have the privilege, which they use, of

distancing a horse for breaking--or, as we would say, commencing to

run--which is, as may be supposed, a thing most difficult to prevent.

Sometimes a racehorse is hitched double with a trotter. This is

called, in American parlance, a running-mate. The runner takes all the

weight and draft of the "sulky," and the trotter merely trots

alongside of him. It requires a very level-headed horse to keep evenly

to his trot, with a runner tearing away at sweeping pace beside him,

and the trial is regarded as simply one of skill, and is rarely

successful. A trotter who can coolly and evenly maintain his trot when

hitched with a racer, can command for his owner any amount of money,

even though he be in all other respects comparatively worthless.

Races, of which many are held at Rhode Island, are as distinct as

possible from trots. The courses are made circular; as much so, at

least, as the lie of the land will permit, and are beautifully

constructed, the grading being especially attended to. They are

generally enclosed by a very high boarded fence, an admission fee

being charged at the opening. This arrangement is found to answer

admirably, as the amount demanded--although not an extravagant one--is

sufficient to exclude a goodly number of racing roughs, whose interest

in the sport is not more keen than their desire to investigate the

contents of their neighbours' pockets.

Trotting-tracks are constructed upon the same principles as

race-courses, but the track is harder. Sometimes, however, although

not frequently, races and trots are held over the same course, and

when this is done the track is carefully softened for the races, by a

harrowing process, which is most carefully carried out.

Most of the hacks and hunters in use in America--a very large portion,

at least, of the saddle-horses--are racers which have been rejected

from the racing-stables. This is particularly the case at East

Greenwich, and throughout the States. Some of these horses are

"weeds," but a few of them are well worthy of the high prices given

for them, being really splendid animals, in spite of the crabbing

which they receive at the judge's hands before they are thrown out of

the contest, and passed over to the proprietorship of dealers in

hacks.

Very fine horses of the hunter class are bred in Kentucky--the

Yorkshire of America--and are sold at comparatively low rates. I saw a

magnificent chestnut, seventeen two in height, with grand action, and

so superbly ribbed-up and built as to be capable of carrying twenty

stone, which had been sold there to an enterprising Irish speculator

for three hundred and twenty dollars, a good deal less than eighty

pounds of our money. The animal afterwards fetched upwards of six

hundred guineas at Tattersall's, to carry a top-weight millionaire

with the Whaddon Chase hounds. This was, however, an exceptional case,

for it is not usually an easy thing, nor even possible, to make money

by trading in Kentucky hunters. A few speculative European dealers

have from time to time tried it, but their efforts have not been

crowned with the anticipated reward, the reason being, that travelling

expenses swallow up profits. Seven days and nights of constant

journeying must be gone through before the animals are brought to the

Atlantic sea-board; and then there is the crossing to encounter, with

its cost and perils. Altogether, it is scarcely a profitable venture,

and some who have embarked in it will, I know, be quite ready to

endorse my opinions upon the subject.

Stag-hunting used to be very prevalent in distant parts of America.

Strangers traversing tracts of country north of the Ohio will be told

this by guides and fellow-travellers, and will marvel that in such a

district it could ever have been a popular sport. Anything more

perilous it would be impossible to conceive, the "going" being

principally up and down precipitous inclines, dotted at frequent

intervals with huge boulders, half buried in the reedy grass, over

which the horses blunder and stumble at almost every stride,--not

unfrequently hurling their riders headlong down some dangerous ravine.

Those who have enjoyed the very doubtful pleasure of hunting at the

Cape, know something of the perils of the Mimosa tree, which grows

there in such deadly luxuriance. A similar danger-trap exists in the

stag-hunting districts of America, the long sharp thorns proving

terribly destructive to the flesh of man and beast.

It is almost impossible to escape these trees. They grow singly and in

groups, with long, light, swaying branches, treacherously

outstretched; and if an excited steed, or an unwary rider comes too

near to one of them, no close-set company of razors could do more

cruel injury, nor make greater havoc of saddlery and clothing.

When we come to regard the question of district hunting in a

comparative light, few will hesitate to admit that in spite of all the

drawbacks consequent upon wire-fencing, fox-trapping, and

hound-poisoning, there are worse countries to hunt in than dear old

England; and we who know the sweet delights of a good gallop over rich

grass-lands, dotted picturesquely with the harmless beech or elm, and

with nothing more dangerous to negotiate than fair broad fences and

five-barred gates, need never sigh for the yawning ravines of foreign

hunting-grounds, with their treacherous boulders and dangerous

Mimosas.

CORRESPONDENCE.

LADIES ON HORSEBACK.

To the Editor of _The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News_.

SIR,--I have read with keen interest the article on "Ladies on

Horseback" in your last number. I find several things in it which

differ from my preconceived ideas, but it is impossible not to

perceive that the writer, Mrs. Power O'Donoghue, speaks from an

experience which makes her an undoubted authority. With reference to

safety-stirrups, for instance. I have always seen that the ladies of

my family were provided with them, and your contributor's objection

seems not to be based upon the mechanism of the stirrup when in proper

order, but on the circumstance that it is "almost invariably stiff,"

through neglect. I must admit that I have seen a lady hung up in a

safety-stirrup; but surely it is possible to see that the stirrup will

work before setting out for a ride or a day's hunting, and if the iron

is large enough, so that "the padding over the instep" will not "cause

the foot to become firmly embedded," are we to understand that the

safety-stirrup is objectionable? Mrs. Power O'Donoghue has a poor

opinion of "John the coachman, and Jem the groom," but I am lucky in

having trustworthy people in my stable. What stirrup would your

contributor have instead of the one with which so large a proportion

of ladies ride? Another thing that I should like to know more about is

the saddle recommended in the article. "Accustom yourself from the

beginning to the use of a properly constructed saddle, made as

straight as a board, no dip whatever," this writer says. Now I have

never, so far as my recollection goes, even seen such a saddle, and

may I ask what are the advantages of a thoroughly straight saddle, and

what are the disadvantages of the inevitable slope or dip? I ask

purely for information, for I am perfectly ready to submit my judgment

and hitherto received notions to the dictum of a lady who is clearly

so competent to treat the matter as your contributor. Would the lady

have straight saddles also for men? is a question which incidentally

occurs to me. I am far from supposing that a thing must be right

because it is in general use, but there seem good reasons for the

adoption of the ordinary shaped saddle, and I should be very glad if

your contributor would let us know her reasons for departing from

custom.

Before concluding, let me thank you for a series of articles which

cannot fail to be of value to those for whom they are intended.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

H. DE V. R.

* * * * *

SIR,--I feel bound to answer the letter of "H. de V. R." which

appeared in your journal of last week's issue. With regard to the

"safety-stirrup," there could not be much objection to it if it were

made sufficiently large to prevent the padding over the instep from

causing the foot to become embedded; and if, likewise, some careful

and competent person were ready and willing to give the machinery of

it a thorough examination immediately before entrusting the safety of

a lady to such an uncertain support. But how seldom is this the case?

Servants--even the most careful--are, to say the least of it, apt to

overlook these important details; and when the steed is led to the

door the cavalier who is to escort the lady is too much occupied in

admiring his fair charge, talking to her, arranging with her where

they shall ride, fastening her gloves, or performing a like office for

himself, to worry his head about such an apparently insignificant

thing as her stirrup. Provided he ascertains that it is the required

length, he troubles himself no further about it, and probably in nine

cases out of ten the dandy youth would not even comprehend the meaning

of the term "safety" as applied to the article in question. No doubt

it often happens that an elderly father, a matter-of-fact husband, a

phlegmatic uncle, or a careful brother may be upon the spot, with wits

and hands ready to avert danger; but how frequently, also, is it the

fashionable stripling who escorts the lady--a cousin, or a lover,

perhaps--ignorant of all connected with riding, except the pleasure of

it; or the booted and belted servant, who touches his hat, and thinks

he has done his duty because the saddle is clean and the horse sleek

and shiny; or the riding-master, who has come out in a hurry, anxious

and flurried at the last moment to see that everything _looks_ right,

and who has had no time to see after such minor accessories as

stirrups, or has left the matter (if he thought of it at all) in the

hands of the groom, who has left it alone altogether. This being the

case, I maintain that a stirrup encumbered with machinery is unsuited

to a lady, because, although she may have an escort who will look

after it, there is the possibility that she may not have such good

fortune. Moreover, a stirrup made sufficiently large to bear padding

over the instep, and yet enable the foot to slip easily in and out,

must of necessity be a considerable weight, and this alone would be an

objection, especially to a hunting lady, who calculates to a nicety

every ounce which her steed has to carry. I have said that a small

racing, or jockey-stirrup, is the _nicest_ in which a lady can ride,

and I am bound to adhere to my judgment.

So much for the first portion of "H. de V. R.'s" letter. Now we come

to the second.

My "poor opinion of John, the coachman, and Jem, the groom," is based,

not upon their untrustworthiness, but upon their want of capacity as

teachers of the equine art. I have never yet, in all my experience,

met with any servant who was capable of instructing a lady how to

ride; yet I have been fairly astonished to find the contrary idea

quite general amongst parents in the country, who fondly hope that

their daughters may one day adorn a saddle and grace a hunting-field.

"I shall have Mary and Jenny taught immediately now," said a lady to

me one day in the course of last summer,--"They shall have a pony

a-piece, and John (the groom) shall teach them." Of course, I said

nothing, my principle of noninterference standing me in good stead;

but when an hour or so later, I beheld the said John disporting

himself, and showing off his equestrian skill upon one of the

carriage-horses, I really felt pity for the two charming little girls

who were so soon to be handed over to his doubtful tuition.

And now for the third portion of your correspondent's letter: namely,

the question of the straight saddle. "H. de V. R." says he has never

seen any such; and I consider this extremely probable, for he will

recollect my saying that a saddle such as I described should be made

to order, as it is certainly not in general use--but I am not

altogether singular in my advocacy of it. Peat and Co., Piccadilly, or

Box and Co., Abbey Street, Dublin, will manufacture saddles of this

description in excellent style, but only to order, for they have not

yet found sufficient favour--or, to express it better, are not

sufficiently known--to have become popular, and manufacturers

therefore will not keep them in stock. The advantages of a straight

saddle are manifold. Firstly, it is the only means by which a lady can

learn the necessary art of riding from balance. This can be acquired

by sitting _on_ a saddle, but never by sitting _in_ one. Secondly, she

can, when riding upon a straight saddle, change and shift her

position, which as a necessary consequence changes her weight upon the

horse's back, and saves him from being galled. A noble lady wrote to

me some time since, "I know not how it is; all my horses are laid up

with sore backs; and yet my saddle is well padded." I guessed the

secret at once; she was riding in a sort of well, or chair, from which

her heavy weight could never for an instant shift, and hence the

trouble of which she complained. I sent her a sketch of my saddle,

with the address of the man who had made it, and she has since been a

staunch upholder of my theory. Thirdly, the best figure in the world

would look to disadvantage if seated in a saddle with a dip or slope;

whereas a well-made woman, attired in a habit properly fitted about

the waist and hips, never looks to such complete advantage as when

sitting gracefully and at ease upon a well constructed straight-made

saddle. Fourthly, if in taking an up-jump the horse misses his footing

and struggles in an unsuccessful effort to recover himself, the lady

may--if riding upon a straight saddle--succeed in slipping from it to

a situation of comparative safety; but, if she has a high projection

of iron and stiff leather just behind her, it bars her movement, and

as a consequence the horse falls back _upon_ her, and catching her

between his weight and the edge of the ditch or furrow, as the case

may be, injures her spine, sometimes fatally, and frequently in a

serious manner.

The question, "Do I also advocate straight saddles for men's use?" is

answered by my reminding "H. de V. R." that there is no analogy

between a gentleman's position upon horseback and that of a lady. What

would be a necessity, or at least a _luxury_, for the one would be

eminently unsuited for the other. A man's superior activity and

greater liberty of motion place him ever at an advantage. And whilst

upon this subject I would strongly urge upon all humane riders,

especially the male portion of them, to have their saddles made high

_in front_, so as not to press upon the horse's withers, causing him

much needless suffering. A space capable of accommodating at least two

fingers should be between withers and saddle, and were this attended

to we should see fewer skin abrasions and unsightly lumps upon poor

submissive animals, and less of that stuffing of handkerchiefs between

cruel leather and bleeding flesh which so frequently pains the

sorrowing eyes of sensitive and pitying persons.

I think I have now dealt fully with "H. de V. R.'s" letter, and must

thank the writer of it for his complimentary observations, and his

kindly appreciation of my labours in a cause which I certainly have

very much at heart.

Apologising for trespassing thus far upon your valuable space.

I am, Sir,

Yours obediently,

NANNIE POWER O'DONAGHUE.

October 12, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--Many readers of _The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News_

hope that Mrs. Power O'Donoghue, in her very interesting letters upon

"Ladies on Horseback," will touch fully on the most important thing,

viz. "the ladies' horse." One sees ladies riding all sorts; some too

big, some too small, some good shoulders and no backs, others just the

reverse; not one out of twenty what it ought to be. Also, up to what

weight should it be? What is the average weight of ladies, and the

difference in ordinary dress to the habit? It is often said that,

owing to the peculiar seat, the weight being all on one side, a lady

tires a horse much more than a man; certainly you often see ladies'

horses going short with the near hind leg, possibly from this cause.

Could not the weight of side-saddles be reduced? Those used by the

Empress of Austria could not have weighed 8 lb., and she was herself a

light woman. Anything on this subject will interest many readers.

I am, &c.

EQUES.

* * * * *

SIR,--There is one point to which I should like to call the attention

of the writer of the able and interesting articles on "Ladies on

Horseback," which she appears to have altogether overlooked in her

enumeration of the articles of a lady's riding attire. It is the use

of a spur by lady equestrians. The recently invented lady's spur

consists of one sharp point so constructed as not to injure the habit.

In hunting, a spur is indispensable, and in park-riding is very

desirable for a lady, who has so much less control over her horse than

a man. Young girls just beginning to ride will find the use of a spur

most beneficial in managing their steeds. Hired horses are never

altogether to be trusted, and in the case of their showing temper or

laziness, two or three pricks with a lady's spur will subdue them far

more quickly than the application of a whip. I have more than once

ridden a horse that was a confirmed jibber, and have always found a

few determined thrusts with my spur, combined with an efficiently

applied whip, never failed to bring him down. I confidently recommend

all ladies, and especially young girls just beginning the art of

equitation, to procure a lady's spur, and never to mount a horse

without it.

I am, &c.

MABEL FLORENCE RAYNE.

The Firs, Cheltenham,

Oct. 18th, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--I suppose it would be impossible to advance any opinions to

which there would not be objections raised, but I write, not in a

cavilling spirit, but as one really anxious for information, to know

whether Mrs. Power O'Donoghue would seriously advocate striking a

horse between the ears when it rears. Surely such a thing would be

exceedingly dangerous for any lady to attempt, and, as your

correspondent is writing solely for ladies, I conclude she refers to

them in the present instance. I feel very strongly upon this point,

because an uncle of mine, some years ago, when out riding tried this

experiment at the advice of a friend. The horse (not a vicious one)

suddenly reared; my uncle loosened the reins and urged it forward, but

finding this ineffectual, struck it violently between the ears with

his hunting-whip. The animal, maddened, I presume, by the pain, reared

straight on end and fell backward; its rider being a very agile man,

slipped off sideways, and thus escaped nearly certain death; but had

the rider been a lady instead of a gentleman the consequences must

have been fatal; and with so light a switch as a lady usually carries,

a blow between the ears could only serve to irritate without producing

any good effect. I would ask one more question: Why does your

correspondent so strongly object to the use of the "old-fashioned

slipper" stirrup? I am rather curious on this point, because I have

ever since the tender age of four, when my riding experiences began,

used the shoe-stirrup, and I have always thought it so safe, because

my foot slips out in a second. I am aware that it is extremely

unfashionable, as in Rotton Row you hardly see a lady using it; but I

keep to it still, not so much with the idea of its safety, but for

comfort, especially in trotting. I find it extremely difficult to keep

an iron stirrup from slipping back into the instep, and, being used to

rise pressing on the toes, I think that rising from the instep is more

difficult and doubles the exertion of trotting. In conclusion, I must

express a hope that Mrs. Power O'Donoghue will not give me credit for

writing in a spirit of unfriendly criticism; but as I am exceedingly

fond of riding, I feel an interest in working out this subject to its

fullest extent. I am sure all lady riders must feel grateful to Mrs.

Power O'Donoghue for the valuable and useful instructions contained in

her interesting letters, and one has only to pay a visit to the Row

between 12 and 2 in the season, to see how much they are needed by the

generality of the "ladies on horseback."

I am, &c.

EQUESTRINA.

October 13th, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--Though not an "aggrieved stirrup-maker," it may not be out of

place if I, as a saddler of many years' experience and a great lover

of horses, offer a few comments on the "hints and instructions" set

forth in your paper for the benefit of ladies on horseback, written by

one of the sex who is evidently an authority on the subject she treats

so ably. There is no doubt these articles will be read with great

interest by very many ladies who desire to acquit themselves well on

horseback, and also by their gentlemen friends who are anxious to

conduce to the safety and comfort of their fair companions in that

delightful exercise, but cannot have the same knowledge to impart the

theoretical instructions now given by your lady writer, whose

criticisms will therefore be valuable to both. In following her

remarks, it occurs to me that I may perhaps venture on a little

comment without being considered too intrusive. The objection taken to

children riding is no doubt formed on good grounds, but I think that

with care young ladies might be permitted at a much earlier age than

sixteen to acquire some practice in the saddle; it is true that young

girls are liable to curvature of the spine, when allowed to ride day

after day on the same side of their pony, but I have understood that

this danger is obviated by changing their position to the other side

on alternate days, and I should be glad to learn what are the

objections to this. It seems to me rather desirable that ladies should

have equal facility in riding on either side, but there may be reasons

against it of which I am ignorant. This lady says that the nicest

bridle for a beginner is a plain ring-snaffle, but states further that

few horses will go in it; the latter remark, if correct, (which I

should venture to doubt), raises a fatal objection to the

ring-snaffle, as I fear that not one young lady in twenty, under

amateur teaching, would be put upon a perfectly trained nag, desirable

as this must be; and thus an ordinary stout mouth plain snaffle, or

plain bar with single rein, would surely be preferable. I fancy it

would be found of much advantage if riding was taught in the first

instance without the use of reins at all, the horse simply being led

by an attendant; the learner thus gets a proper balance, without

depending on the bridle for support, as many are found to do. For a

young girl I should like to know what is the objection to a pad, or

pilch as they are called, made for use on either side. These, having

no tree, are nearly level, but there is perhaps a chance of its

turning round if the rider does not sit straight; for a grown girl,

the properly made saddle is better every way. In common with your

correspondent "H. de V. R.," I fail quite to understand how a

side-saddle is to be made "as straight as a board." A saddle is made

on a foundation, or tree, of wood and iron, which should be shaped for

the back intended to bear it, and must be raised slightly in front for

the wither and behind to clear the backbone; but it is right that the

seat should be as level as possible. This is probably the lady's

meaning. It is very essential that the saddle should fit the horse

correctly and be of suitable size and shape for the rider; the former

consideration is too often overlooked and thus entails discomfort to

both. There are saddles, and saddles, as ladies often find to their

cost. A very large proportion in use here, and more abroad, are put

together in Birmingham and Walsall on the slop system; they will

please the eyes of an inexperienced purchaser, but are formed with

little regard to the requirements of the poor animals who suffer under

them, or of their riders' comfort, and it is probable that these are

the saddles against which ladies are very properly warned. It is

really indispensable for a lady's comfort in riding that she should

have a good saddle, made by a competent and conscientious saddler,

whose business it is to see that it is suitable. Considering the

number of years that a good saddle with care will last, it is

inconceivable that the comparatively small additional price should be

grudged for a perfect and satisfactory article by a maker of repute,

instead of the machine-made slop rubbish, by which many a good animal

is injured and the temper of his rider seriously chafed. Enough about

saddles for the present, so I will go to the next point under

discussion--the stirrup. Your lady rider must have been very

unfortunate in her use of the safety-stirrup, which, in my opinion,

does in practice usually justify its name. I have known very many

instances in which ladies have owed immunity from serious accident to

its use. As "H. de V. R." justly says, the mechanism of the stirrup

(which is very simple) should not be allowed to get out of order by

neglect; surely the lady or her friends, particularly if so

"knowledgeable" as the writer of the article, might [They "_might_."

That they so often do not, and that danger so frequently results from

the neglect, is the grievance and complaint of our contributor.--ED.

_I.S. & D.N._] take the trouble personally to see that her stirrup is

not out of order from rust, and in no other way but one can it be so;

the other way is that if the groom ignorantly or carelessly adjusts

the stirrup for use hind part before, the inner stirrup cannot be

released, and the rider's foot, in case of a fall, will be helplessly

fixed in the stirrup. This eventuality, however, does not detract from

the real value of the safety-stirrup, for neglect and ignorance will

entail direful consequences in all ways. Next to the safety-stirrup, I

quite believe that a plain steel stirrup of suitable size, with side

pieces at the bottom to take sharp pressure off the foot, is the most

suitable for ladies' use, and I always condemn the small padded

stirrup, which is, indeed, a fruitful source of danger to lady riders.

With the rest of Mrs. O'Donoghue's dissertation I cordially agree, and

believe it would be beneficial if both men and ladies practised riding

without the aid of the stirrup; and the same rule applies to and is

generally practised by men, as I saw a few days ago on a German

barrack-ground, where an awkward squad was being trained in that

manner. The art of putting a lady up is one that should be practised

more than it is by horsemen; my first attempt resulted in the lady

slipping down again, and on my hat, which suffered even more than my

self-esteem. On one occasion in the Crimea, years ago, I was riding

with a lady and her husband, the former dismounted at Mrs. Seacole's

for refreshment, and on being put up again by her husband with more

vigour than skill, the poor lady was sent over her horse's back to the

ground on the other side, and being somewhat portly, was shaken

severely. I fear many ladies have suffered in the same way from the

awkwardness of their attendants, but I have seen ladies so agile as to

mount from the ground without assistance--rather a difficult feat, and

requiring much practice. Having trespassed so much on your space I

must not proceed further now, but shall be happy to air my notions

again, if agreeable to your readers and riders.

Yours, &c.

JERMYN.

* * * * *

SIR,--My papers entitled "Ladies on Horseback" have called forth many

letters. Some of these you have printed, some have been forwarded to

me from your office, and many have been received at my own house. I

shall regard it as a favour if you will permit me to reply to a few of

them through the medium of your paper, as in answering one I shall

answer many who have written upon the same subject.

J. V.--When the horse took head with me and leaped into the farm-yard

(as depicted by Mr. Sturgess) I had no way of getting out except by

the passage and kitchen of the farm-house, as the gates of the yard

were locked, and the owner of the place--who was away at the

neighbouring town--had the key in his pocket.

EQUES.--The reason why ladies ride "all sorts of horses" is that

comparatively few keep horses of their own, and those who are without

them and are fond of riding, jump eagerly at the offer of a friend's

mount, whether it be suitable or otherwise. A nice horse for a lady

may be thus described: Height about 15-3; Colour dark bay or brown,

well-set sloping shoulders, good back, arched loins, firm and graceful

neck, small head and ears, shapely clean-cut legs, and good firm feet.

A horse of this description will be well up to 13 or 14 st. For a

heavy weight an animal should be selected with a short wide back,

powerful quarters, big healthy hocks, and stoutly-built fore-legs. The

_average_ weight of ladies is about 9st. Summer costume and riding

gear would weigh about equally, but velvet or sealskin would outweigh

a habit. A lady seated upon a properly-made saddle, if she has been

well taught, will never have her weight "all on one side." The reason

why horses go short with the near hind leg is because ladies ride from

the stirrup, leaning their full weight upon it, and galling the

animal's back. The stirrup is meant to assist, not to _support_, the

rider. Old-fashioned side-saddles are all too heavy; but a

well-constructed modern saddle can scarcely be improved upon. It is a

mistake to ride in too light a saddle, as it brings the weight of the

body too near the horse's back. That used by the Empress of Austria

weighed 12 lbs., which is about a correct standard.

LADYBIRD.--Nobody who has any regard for life and limb now rides

through Dublin. All wise persons gave it up when pavement and

tram-lines made the city what it is. Consequently the park is

deserted, and only a solitary horseman is seen in Stephen's Green.

INQUIRER.--The shoe should be made to _fit the foot_. It is most

cruel, and is a fruitful source of lameness, to pare the foot away to

make it fit a ready-made shoe. If you cannot trust your farrier,

change him. This advice also applies to JAMES R., but I do not

undertake to answer questions respecting the treatment or management

of the horse.

MABEL FLORENCE RAYNE.--I had not forgotten nor overlooked the

important uses of the spur. You will find the subject treated in my

papers upon hunting and hunting-costume. I do not, however, _at all_

approve of its use for beginners, as such are certain, through

nervousness, to press the left heel close to the horse's side, and, if

furnished with a spur, would cause him much needless pain and

irritation, besides endangering their own safety.

ROBERT KEATING.--Best thanks for letter and papers.

G. ELLIOT.--For riding with a bit and bridoon, place a rein between

each finger of your left hand, and hold them securely with your thumb,

reserving your right hand for your whip; or take your reins in both

hands, and ride your horse upon the curb, or snaffle, according to his

temperament. For riding with a single rein, place the near leather

under your little finger and the off one between the first and second

fingers, which is as good a way as any; but I have already said that

there is no fixed rule for holding reins, and a good rider will

constantly change them about, and move the bridle in her horse's

mouth, which prevents him hanging upon his bit.

JANE CARR.--I scarcely know whether to regard your letter as a

compliment or the reverse. My labours have been _totally_ unassisted;

nor has my experience of this world shown me that its occupants are

sufficiently philanthropic to labour that another may reap the merit

and the reward.

L. K.--The subject is not within my province. Mayhew's _Horse

Management_, published by Allen & Co., 13, Waterloo Place, London, is

the best I can recommend.

HUNTSMAN.--It is for ladies I am writing.

ELEANOR.--Thanks; but if I adopted one half of the suggestions

offered, a strange result would ensue. Happily my papers went to press

without _anybody_ (save the Editor) having had a glance at them. He

generously accepted them upon their merits; but had I shown them to

others I should either have altered something in every second line or

have given offence to numerous well-meaning persons. When I was a

child I committed to memory the inimitable fable of "The Miller, his

Son, and his Ass," and have taken the moral of it as a guide through

life.

GOODALL.--A short hunting-crop without a lash would do.

EQUESTRINA.--If a horse rears with me in a vicious manner I hit him

between the ears, but I do not by any means expect my readers to

coincide in all my views, and those who know a better plan can, of

course, adopt it. If an animal rears slightly I lean forward against

his neck, touch him with my heel, and speak to him. If he persists,

and I see any danger of his falling back, I hit him between the ears

with the butt-end of my whip, not sufficiently heavily to "madden

him," nor even to cause him the least pain, but to occasion him to

duck his head, which he invariably does; and if at that instant I hit

him sharply with my heel, he drops at once and lashes out behind.

Allowing for a moment that such a mode of action may be open to

objection, is it not better (seeing that it is frequently efficacious)

than sitting quietly and permitting one's-self to be fallen back upon,

without making any effort to avert the catastrophe? My objection to

the slipper-stirrup is founded on the knowledge that it encourages

ladies to lean their weight upon it. "It feels so comfortable," I

heard a lady say, "so like a resting-board beneath my foot, that I

_cannot help_ riding from it." An iron stirrup with the foot well home

is the proper thing to ride in; and remember it is from the instep and

_not_ from the toes that you should rise. The iron should meet the

waist of the boot-sole, and a long flat heel (I do not mean one of

those atrocities known as a _high_ one) should be worn on the boot.

JERMYN.--Your letter almost answers itself. The pad or pilch _is_ apt

to turn round, for it is only one little girl in twenty who sits

straight. You judge my meaning rightly about the straight saddle, but

I opine that it is the stuffing which should be arranged to guard the

backbone from pressure, and that it is in no way necessary to raise

the _seat_ at the back. I must again say, for the third time, that a

plain ring-snaffle is the _nicest_ for a lady's use, and also maintain

my opinion that few horses will go in it, according to _my_ ideas of

"going." A horse who goes well in a ring-snaffle must have a perfect

temper and a perfect mouth, a combination as rare in the equine as in

the human tribe. For ordinary hunters and roadsters I do not recommend

it, simply because they will not go in such a bridle; but I shall ever

hold to my opinion that it is the nicest and the least puzzling for a

beginner.

KATIE.--Not worth denying. It is one of those worthless untruths which

I have long since learned to treat with contempt.

LIVERPUDLIAN.--Your suggestion is so good that I shall certainly adopt

it. Nothing could be better adapted for riding in than a warm jersey,

buttoned in front. Being elastic it would allow full play for the arms

and shoulders, and would also display a good figure to advantage. If

you, or some other, would only get up a sufficient amount of courage

to turn a deaf ear to the hateful and oft-recurring "What will be

said?" we might have many useful and elegant innovations of which at

present we know nothing.

YOUNG WIFE.--There can be no impropriety in what you say. "Honi soit

qui mal y pense?" So long as you have a good conscience and your

husband's approval you need care little for what the world says.

X. Y. Z., DASHAWAY, and COUNTRYMAN.--I cannot reply to your letters.

Thanking you, Sir, for your kindness in granting me so much of your

valuable space,

I am, &c.

NANNIE POWER O'DONOGHUE.

October 25.

* * * * *

SIR,--The "recently-invented lady's spur," mentioned in your last

issue by "Mabel Florence Kayne," was patented towards the close of the

last century, and illustrations of it, and of other spurs on the same

principle, can be seen at the Patent Office. I quite concur in the

recommendation that a lady should always wear a spur, and it will be

seen from the last article by Mrs. Power O'Donoghue that a spur forms

part of her hunting equipment; but I strongly advise ladies to wear a

spur with a rowel having only five points, which should be long and

sharp. The spur with one point and a spring sheath is commonly sold by

saddlers for ladies' use, but is liable to break or get out of order,

and is always discarded in favour of the one with a five-pointed rowel

by ladies who have tried the latter. Mrs. Power O'Donoghue is doing

good service to ladies by protesting against the stirrups facetiously

so-called "safety." I always advise a lady to use a perfectly plain

steel stirrup, but a tolerably heavy one. Why cannot the stirrup be

attached to a lady's saddle in the same manner as to a gentleman's?

Then, in case of accident, the stirrup and leather would come away

together. An excellent bit for a lady's horse is a curb-bit, suspended

in the horse's mouth by two large rings, to which the snaffle-reins

are also attached. This bit is very light or very severe, at the

rider's wish.

I am, &c.

SOUTHERN CROSS.

October 26, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--Continuing my remarks on this subject, I am bound to say that

your contributor gives sufficient answer to the question of the

safety-stirrup in explaining that the objection is removed providing

the inner stirrup is large enough for the foot to be easily

extricated; the stirrup being made in three different sizes, this is a

matter easily adjusted. The shoe-stirrup referred to by "Equestrina"

was in use by ladies for many years, and in point of safety I think no

objection can be raised to it; the same shape of stirrup is much

affected by men in South America.

The instructions in Part Second of Mrs. Power O'Donoghue's writings

are very admirable, except that I do not see the utility of a lady's

striking a rearing horse between the ears, with the few ounces of whip

usually carried. I have known men do so with a loaded whip, and

knocking a horse down to cure him of this vice, but it would be

scarcely advisable for a lady to try this. I am rather surprised to

see it stated as a fact that both rearing and plunging maybe entirely

prevented by using the so-called anti-rearing bit martingale. It

certainly may prevent rearing on the first attempt if the horse's head

is kept down tightly by this martingale attached to the breastplate,

but as the latter is seldom worn except for hunting, it cannot be

intended to recommend it for that purpose, for it would infallibly

follow that the fixed martingale would bring both horse and rider to

grief at the very first fence they attempted to clear, and if the

horse had sufficient liberty of action to jump freely, the martingale

would be no obstruction to his rearing. I know from my own experience

that a horse can be knocked down by a blow on the head. I was once

doing a little private mounted practice at sword exercise, preparatory

to a prize competition, and grasping my sword with thick gloves on,

the weapon somehow turned in my hand, caught my mare below the ear on

the bridle-hand, and knocked her completely off her legs, to our

mutual amazement, though no great harm was done. I do not see what

analogy there can be between the powerful Chifney bit and a rearing

martingale; the effect of the latter may be secured by attaching a

split martingale, with leather or spring billets, to the mouth-rings

of any bit in use, snaffle or Pelham; but I believe that a horse can,

if determined, rear all the same, and it certainly would not prevent

plunging or bucking. For a restive or jibbing horse in saddle I have

always found a short running martingale very useful; the rider should

shorten and lower the right rein well down the horse's shoulder, apply

the right leg and spur sharply, and turn the horse round like a

teetotum until he is dizzy, then give him both spurs when his head is

in the right direction. This will set him going before he knows where

he is, and is a practice I have found very efficacious, but not easily

applicable by ladies.

On the subject of bits, my own favourite is the Hanoverian Pelham; it

will generally hold the strongest puller, and, with a light hand, I

have never met a horse that would not face it. For show or park riding

there is none better; it is, however, not suited to those who trust to

the bridle-reins for their balance in the saddle.

"Eques" inquires "what is the average weight of ladies?" This is a

difficult query, but as ladies ride at all weights between six and

eleven stone, with a margin each way, I should suppose the average

would be about 8-1/2 stone, exclusive of saddle, &c. A lady who is an

indifferent rider would throw more weight on one side than the other,

one cause of so many sore backs from side-saddles; but a thoroughly

good horsewoman would sit with as level a balance as a man. The weight

of good modern side-saddles is much reduced, but they cannot well be

made under 14 lb., with furniture, and are usually considerably more.

If the Empress of Austria uses a saddle of 8 lb. only (as some have

averred), she must ride on a man's steeplechase-saddle, which perhaps

would not be a difficult performance for a lady who is said to be in

the habit of driving four-in-hand.

I am much impressed by the recital of your contributor's adventures

and hair-breadth escapes on the saddle, particularly on the occasion

she refers to when invited by a friend to ride the big bay horse. If

the friend was a gentleman, I must repeat the opinion I heard

expressed by a lady when reading the article--that any man who would

wilfully expose a woman to risk her life on such a brute behaved

disgracefully. There is no object in creation to my mind more

attractive than a graceful woman controlling with ease a fine and

well-trained horse; but no one with due respect for the sex would wish

to see her taking the place of a rough rider.

Yours, &c.

JERMYN.

* * * * *

SIR,--Although I care nothing for anything that may be said about

myself, I am ever loyal to my friends, and it seems to me hard that

one of the truest of them should be spoken of as having "behaved

disgracefully" by a writer who, with more impetuosity than judgment,

jumps at conclusions without waiting to hear the truth. When I was

riding homeward after the leap into the farm-yard, I met the owner of

the horse upon the road, driving out with a friend. The moment he

heard what had occurred he took me off the animal, changed my saddle

to the very quiet horse he was driving, and actually, after nearly an

hour's delay, succeeded in putting the harness upon the "big bay,"

and, having done so, drove him home regardless of his own safety, or

rather of his danger, which was imminent. I do not think there are

many men at his time of life, and in his delicate state of health, who

would have done the same thing rather than chance a second runaway. He

had _no_ reason to suppose that any such thing would, in the first

instance, have happened, and I believe it was attributable to the fact

that the horse had been ridden a day or two previously by a very wild

rider, who had spoilt his mouth and manners, and who subsequently

apologised to me for having been the cause of what occurred. I might

have mentioned all this before, and certainly should have done so had

I thought that such necessity should have arisen. I would remind

"Jermyn" that my observations respecting the martingale were confined

to my papers on _road-riding_, not on hunting, and would also thank

him, with my best obeisance, for calling me a rough-rider.

I am, Sir,

Yours obediently,

NANNIE POWER O'DONOGHUE.

October 31, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--I must, in justice to myself, ask you to be so kind as to grant

me space in your influential journal to reply to the very serious

charge "Jermyn" brought against me in your issue of the 30th of the

past month. I am the friend who asked Mrs. Power O'Donoghue to ride

"the big bay," and yet I believe that nobody in all the world has a

higher esteem for that lady, nor a truer regard for her safety than I

have. Indeed there are few men in Ireland (if one) worth being called

the name, who would not willingly lay down their own lives rather than

imperil the life of one so universally beloved. The horse up to the

day of the runaway had been perfectly quiet and most easily managed.

He carried me two seasons to hounds, never making a mistake nor

pulling in the least. Not being able to ride, having shortly before

met with a very serious accident, I lent "the big bay" to a

hard-riding young officer for a day's hunting. He unfortunately must

have made too free use of his long-necked spurs, and, totally unknown

to me, ruffled the horse's temper; the animal remembering the

treatment he received, and finding but a feather on his back, when

excited by the music of the hounds, overpowered his rider; but, thank

Heaven, no serious accident occurred. I was unutterably shocked and

distressed on hearing of the occurrence, and may state that on the day

in question I was driving in my dog-cart, accompanied by a gentleman

(late an officer in Her Majesty's service) who can vouch for the truth

of my statement, when Mrs. O'Donoghue came up to me and told me of her

very narrow escape. I did not hesitate an instant to say, "I will take

out the horse I am driving. You know him to be a perfect mount, and I

will put 'the big bay' in my trap." The lady did not wish me to do so,

knowing the risk I ran in putting a horse in harness that had never

been in such before. I at last succeeded in prevailing on her not to

lose the day's sport, changed the saddle with great difficulty, and

attached "the big bay" to my dog-cart; after a few plunges and an

endeavour to get away, he settled down, and has since gone grandly. My

friend, though a very bold man, would not get in with me for some

time. I hope after this explanation your correspondent will be

sufficiently generous to allow that I did all in my power to insure

the safety of a most precious life. With regard to the term

"rough-rider," as applied by "Jermyn" to Mrs. O'Donoghue, I feel

assured if he knew the lady he would not for worlds have used such an

expression.

I am, Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

ONE WHO HAS RIDDEN TO HOUNDS FOR OVER SIXTY YEARS.

* * * * *

SIR,--I should by no means recommend a young lady to wear a spur when

learning in a riding-school, but from my own experience I strongly

advise all girls beginning to ride on the road never to mount their

steeds without a sharp spur on their left boot. The second time I went

out riding, when I was fourteen, my cob, startled by some noise,

suddenly began to rear and pitch vigorously. I applied my whip sharply

across his flank, but without effect. I then gave him a series of

sharp pricks with my spur, which completely subdued him. Had I been

without a spur I should probably have been thrown and severely

injured. I should certainly prefer a spur with a rowel as "Southern

Cross" recommends, but would it not be apt to tear the habit?

I am, &c.

MABEL FLORENCE RAYNE.

The Firs, Cheltenham,

November 1, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--A correspondent in your last number advises ladies to use a

rowel spur, with five prongs, long and sharp, so, as a friend of

horses, I am inclined to write an objection to their taking this

advice. In the first place, from the nature of a lady's seat, her

armed heel would often unintentionally irritate and annoy the horse;

and in the second place many would probably use this instrument of

torture too severely, and therefore cruelly. A rowel spur, with five

long and sharp prongs--in fact, a jockey's spur--is a much more severe

instrument than is required for ordinary riding, either by man or

woman, and the advantage of the ladies' bore spur is, that it can only

be applied when intended, and then is quite sufficiently severe. I

have no objection to ladies, who are good horsewomen, wearing a spur,

and using it, too, as severely as necessary, but I have great

objections to any unnecessary pain or annoyance being given to my

friends, the horses. Another lady correspondent of yours says that a

spur is quite indispensable for hunting. If she means that it should

always be worn in case it is required, I agree; but I have ridden a

courageous high-tempered horse for years with hounds without ever

using the spur.

I am, &c.

FAIR PLAY.

Glasgow, 1st November 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--As the subject of spurs and other riding equipment for ladies

seems at the present time to occupy and interest many of your fair

readers, permit me, on behalf of my sisters, who are horsewomen of

some experience, both at home and in the colonies, and who have

practically tried most known riding-costumes, to recommend, through

the medium of your columns, the following as a comfortable and

serviceable riding-dress for a lady, for long country rides, picnics,

&c.; of course not for the Park, or a lawn meet. Habit--a short,

strong hunting-skirt, short enough to walk in with comfort, with

jacket of same cloth as skirt, made loose enough to admit of a jersey

being worn under it if required; a wide leather belt for the waist,

fastening with a buckle. This belt will be found a great comfort and

support when on horseback for many hours. Hat of soft felt, or a

melon-shaped hat. Pantaloons of chamois leather, buttoning close at

the ankles. Hussar or Wellington boots, reaching to about four inches

of the knee, to be worn over the pantaloons, made of Peel leather with

_moderate_-sized heels, tipped with brass, and soles strong but not

thick. A leather stud should be sewn on the left boot, about 2-1/2

inches above the heel, on which stud the spur should rest, and thus be

kept in its place without tight buckling. The spur found to be the

most useful after the trial of many is a rowel spur of plated steel,

about two inches to two and-a-half inches long, strong and light,

hunting shape, and fastened with a strap and buckle, the foot-strap of

plated steel chain. This chain foot-strap looks neater than a leather

one, and does not become cut or worn out when on foot on rough or

rocky ground. The rowel pin is a screw pin; thus the rowel can be

changed at pleasure, and a sharp or a blunt one fitted as is required

by the horse one rides. The spur I mention can be obtained of Messrs.

Maxwell & Co., Piccadilly, London; or of Mr. Thompson, saddler, Dawson

street, Dublin.

Some ladies affect two spurs--one, the right, being fitted with a

blank rowel; this is, of course, for appearance sake when dismounted.

I have not often seen two spurs worn. I am not alluding to Miss Bird's

riding-costume, as described in her books, _Life in the Sandwich

Islands_ and _The Rocky Mountains_. She rode _a la cavaliere_, in a

Mexican saddle, and wearing big rowel Mexican spurs, and appears from

her account to have preferred this style of riding to the modern style

and side-saddle. Some years ago I saw a photograph of the Queen of

Naples (I think in 1860), representing the queen mounted _a la

cavaliere_, wearing a high felt hat, a long white cloak,

patent-leather jack-boots, and gilt spurs. Can any of your readers

inform me if this style of riding for ladies is a custom of Southern

Italy as well as Mexico and the Sandwich Islands?

I am, &c.

JACK SPUR.

* * * * *

SIR,--I cannot regret that my letter has given the authoress of this

work, and also the owner of the "big bay" horse, an opportunity of

explaining the circumstances attending her mount on that puissant but

headstrong animal, and of repudiating the erroneous construction put

upon it, as probably the same idea may have occurred to many other

readers of the anecdote, who may not have cared to express their

sentiments. I must say, however, that I am very sorry if my remarks

occasioned pain to either of your correspondents. The explanation

given shows clearly that no blame was really attributable to the

gentleman who offered the mount, and I can well believe he never

dreamt of danger with the horse in such skilful hands. No one would

doubt the sincerity of the statement given, that the horse was put in

harness for the first time and driven away, after such an experience

of his temper; but it speaks more highly for the courage than

discretion of his owner, and I can well understand the friend's

hesitation to share the driving-seat, for there are few things more

trying to the nerves than to sit behind a determined bolter. Perhaps I

write feelingly, having been in that predicament myself three years

ago, resulting in a fractured hip and permanent lameness. I will most

certainly admit that the chivalrous gentleman did all, and more than

was necessary, to avert further peril to the lady who had so narrow an

escape. As for the obnoxious term "rough rider," to which exception is

taken, it was intended to be used generally and not individually; if

it has unfortunately happened that Mrs. Power O'Donoghue, whom I have

never had the pleasure of seeing, took it in a personal sense, I most

sincerely beg her forgiveness, and will ask her rather to accept, as

applicable to herself, the earlier remarks about ladies on horseback

at the conclusion of my letter, and the assurance of my belief that

such a gentlewoman as she is described could never be a _rough_ rider

in any way.

I am, &c.

JERMYN.

* * * * *

SIR,--The spur with a five-pointed rowel was strongly recommended for

ladies' use many years ago in the _Queen_, and is worn by many: it

does not tear the habit, and is not more severe than the spring-sheath

spur with a point of the same length, as only one point of the rowel

can prick the horse at a time; indeed, it is not so severe, as it can

be applied with a very slight touch, which generally is all that is

required, whilst the spring-sheath spur must be applied with

sufficient force to overcome the resistance of the spring, with the

result that the horse is often more sharply pricked than the rider

intends. The points of a lady's spur should be long enough to be

effective if the skirt of the habit intervenes, as, with any

arrangement, it sometimes will do, when, if the points are too short,

the horse does not feel it. I dissent from the statement of "Fairplay"

that, "from the nature of a lady's seat, her armed heel would often

unintentionally irritate and annoy her horse." If applied to a clumsy

rider the statement is accurate, but a lady who is a moderately good

rider has no difficulty in keeping her foot in the proper position,

and a lady's left foot should be in the same position as a man's;

whilst, as a lady has the third crutch to steady her left leg, she has

less excuse than a man would have for the unintentional use of the

spur; but this evil carries its own antidote, for the lady would soon

perceive the result of the irritation, and become more careful. The

best way to cure a boy of turning out his toes and holding on with his

heels is to give him a pair of long-necked spurs, and then put him on

a fidgetty horse; a few minutes' experience teaches him more than a

month of lecturing. I never knew of a mishap occurring to a lady

through accidentally spurring her horse, but I have known many

instances of ladies being put to great inconvenience and annoyance

through not wearing a spur, and I do not understand why a lady should

be more likely than a man to use it with undue severity. That it is an

advantage to a lady is clearly shown by the fact that a lady who once

tries one always continues its use. "Fairplay" is also mistaken about

the spring-sheath spur, for it is as readily applied as any other,

though more force is required, which is objectionable, and especially

so in park riding, when the spring of the horse to an unintentionally

sharp application betrays the action of the rider. I claim to be as

good a friend of horses as "Fairplay," but I have some regard for the

rider as well as for the horse, and I consider that, whilst we are

justified in riding horses, we are justified in using such reasonable

aids as we find most satisfactory to ourselves; and I have no sympathy

with anyone who objects to a lady availing herself of the convenience

and assistance so readily supplied by a judiciously-used spur, which

every horseman knows cannot, in very many cases, be obtained by any

other means, and which he never hesitates to avail himself of. In

these days of locomotion a lady loses a great deal of the pleasures of

travelling, and of the opportunities of seeing the countries she may

visit, unless she can and will ride such horses as she may meet with

in those countries; and even in the rural districts of England there

is many an old nag of the "Proputty Proputty" type, which (though not

possessed of the special points of a lady's horse--"Oh! such a lovely

mane and tail") will carry a lady tolerably well if he feels the spur

occasionally. If "Mabel Florence Rayne" tries the rowel spur and the

bit I mentioned in my former letter, I am sure she will be satisfied

with them, and perhaps she will write her opinion for the benefit of

others. The excellent and sensible letters of Mrs. Power O'Donoghue

will probably convince people that a horse, when he has a lady on his

back, is very much the same kind of animal, and requires very much the

same kind of management, as when he is ridden by a man. If Mrs. Power

O'Donoghue can obtain this result, she will sweep away many of the

peculiar prejudices and ideas that now prevail as to all matters

appertaining to ladies on horseback.

I am, &c.

SOUTHERN CROSS.

* * * * *

SIR,--In the article under the above-mentioned heading, published in

your issue of the 6th November, Mrs. Power O'Donoghue recommends that

horses' tails should not be docked. Dealers, when offering horses for

sale, do not usually volunteer any information as to whether the

horses have been docked. I wish, therefore, to inform any intending

purchasers who may not know how to ascertain whether a horse has been

docked, and who may wish to obtain some which have not been disfigured

in this manner, that if the dock (that is, the portion of the tail

which consists of bones and muscles, &c.) is in its natural state, the

hair grows thickly at the end or tip of it, and there is no bare space

there; but if it has been shortened by a portion of it being cut off

(or docked), there is at the end or tip of it a circular space of

about an inch in diameter, entirely bare of hair. When a horse has

been docked, the hair of the tail scarcely grows after it has reached

to within six or seven inches above the hocks. The hocks of a large

horse are about twenty-five inches above the ground. It is a general

custom with London dealers to cut the hair of the tail very short

before offering a horse for sale, so that it does not come down lower

than to a distance of about nine inches above the hocks. The buyer

cannot then tell to what length the tail is likely to grow. If

customers would refuse to buy horses with the hair of the tail cut

short, perhaps the practice in question would be discontinued by the

dealers.

I am, Sir, &c.

X. Y. Z.

London, November 10, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--In your paper of last week I notice a letter on the advisability

of ladies on horseback adopting the cross-saddle in place of the side,

that is to say, in plain English, ride astride. This I have done

abroad when far beyond conventional bondage, and it is incomparably

better. Your correspondent points out the evils resulting from the

one-sided twisted seat, which a lady now has, and also, in the same

paper, the authoress of _Ladies on Horseback_ says how impossible it

is with only one foot in the stirrup to rise comfortably to a high

trotter. Now I should never have dared to name such a change had it

not been thus mooted. Society will shriek out and say, "Woman would be

indeed out of place thus." Why? I am sure with a proper dress there is

nothing to hurt the extremely proper feelings of the most modest. All

who have hunted know that the _very_ short skirted habits at times

display, well, say the leg of the fair _equestrienne_ most liberally.

Now the dress for the cross-horse style is much the same as a bathing

suit, loose Zouave drawers drawn close below the knee, and fastened

tightly over the boot at the ankle; a loose tunic, long enough to come

almost to the knee when mounted, lightly belted at the waist, a cape

falling over the shoulders, not quite to the elbows. This is my attire

when free to ride in the _only_ really comfortable way, a foot in each

stirrup. Oh, no woman would ever be twisted and packed on to a side

saddle again if she could help it, after once enjoying the ease and

freedom, as well as complete control of her horse which a man's seat

gives.

So far as exhibitions of limbs go, it is much more delicate, and there

is nothing to offend the most sensitive lady in this style. Only it is

not fashionable. When shall we cease to prostrate ourselves before

that Juggernaut of fashion? For all paces and in every instance it is

better, and the risk of accidents is reduced at _least one half_. It

is a wonderful ease in long rides to _vary the stirrup length_. The

military, almost straight-leg, trot, I think the easiest, but, on the

other hand, some of the best riders I have ever seen abroad ride with

a very short stirrup; it is a matter of habit and custom. But if the

fashion were once introduced here, I know it would prove a priceless

boon to ladies who love riding. Let some lady who has the opportunity

once try it in her own private grounds (at first) or in some quiet,

out-of-the-way country lane or moorland, and she will be surprised. It

is a _new existence on horseback_, and _nothing_ indelicate about it,

clad as I have named. Oh, what a difference it does make. It is

twenty-three years now since I first took the idea from a book

published by a lady, entitled, _Unprotected Females in Norway_, and

whenever I can, I always ride so, of course abroad or even in the far

north of Scotland. What a sensation in the Row would a party of ladies

make thus mounted! Again, it is much easier for the horse, having your

weight fairly distributed, not all perched on one side. Your seat is

much firmer; leaping is, oh, so easy; in fact, your power seems

doubled in every way. In case of conflict with your horse, you feel a

veritable centaur compared with the side seat, where you have no grip,

only the aid of the saddle, but with the aid of your own knees and a

foot on each side of the horse I think I _could not be thrown_. Oh, I

wish it could be initiated, dear Mr. Editor. Do use your influence in

this direction. And it really looks well when the dress is well-made

and tasty, and you feel so very free and at ease, can turn about any

way, not pinned on to your horse, or rather on to your saddle, as

ladies are. I could give full directions to make an outfit for going

abroad in this style; you would smile at my saddle I know, but it is

so comfortable. I can hardly bear to ride on an orthodox one now. That

is the worst of it. I have been mounted on mules in this manner in

Honduras, and ridden immense distances without being stiff or tired

unduly. Some of these are the animals to try _your mettle and seat_,

and I was only once thrown, owing to a stirrup-leather breaking. Then

a lady is able to use spurs as easily as possible, no trouble about

habit skirts tearing or getting in the way of the spur. With a sharp

spur on each foot you can do anything with your horse, so very

different from the wretched box spurs, eternally entangled in your

habit or out of order. I do wish an association could be formed to

carry out the idea; one or two could not do it, it must be

simultaneous. For little girls it would be simply invaluable as an

improvement on the present style, which really does cause distortion

of the spine and a one-sided carriage when girls ride much. Do please

ventilate this question, and oblige very much,

Yours, &c.

HERSILIE.

P.S.--I have taken your paper ever since October 2nd, when I first saw

_Ladies on Horseback_ in it, and have been much pleased with it, and

also much amused with the correspondence thereon, but I never expected

to see ladies' change of seat advocated, and am so glad to-day to find

that it is.

* * * * *

SIR,--Permit me to state that the object in having the screw rowel-pin

in the spur, recommended by me for the use of ladies in your number of

November 13th, is in order to enable the wearers to use a mild or a

severe rowel, according to the requirements of the horses they ride. I

am very much against sharp spurs for ladies (or gentlemen either),

unless they are absolutely required; but from some experience, both at

home and abroad, I am quite convinced that the wearing of a spur

should be the rule and not the exception. If the rowel is moderately

sharp only, no cruelty can arise, less I maintain than in the use of a

whip. I strongly object to the use of the sheath spur because of its

severity; it must be applied with a _kick_ to be of any use, and the

effect is usually much more punishing than there is any necessity for.

If ladies will use rowel spurs with _moderately_ sharp rowels, such as

are usual in gentlemen's park spurs, they will find that they are in

possession of a very useful aid (certainly not a cruel one), and if

fitted on a neat patent leather hussar or Wellington boot, a very

ornamental one as well.

I am, &c.

JACK SPUR.

December, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--The correspondence on Mrs. Power O'Donoghue's articles has

contained many remarks on ladies' spurs, but I have noticed scarcely

any reference to one point which I think is worth consideration--namely,

the mode of fastening. I think ladies would find it an advantage to

wear what are known as "spring" or "box" spurs, instead of those

fastening with the usual straps, or strap and chain. I have never seen

a lady's spur of this description, but possibly they are made--if not,

they easily could be. They are much the most easy to attach or remove,

and there is no chance of a strap being cut in walking or otherwise,

or of an over-tight buckle hurting the foot. Their principal

advantage, however, is not one of mere convenience, but of safety; the

absence of strap and buckle removes one element in a great

danger--that of the foot sticking in the stirrup in a fall. Captain

Whyte-Melville speaks from observation of the risk of the buckle

catching in the angle of the stirrup-iron, and says he has never seen

a spurless boot so entangled. He is arguing against the wearing of

spurs at all; but the risk is avoided if box spurs be worn. Since I

became convinced that the strap and buckle were a quite possible,

though perhaps unlikely, source of danger, I have altogether discarded

them, and have felt my feet more free in the stirrups in consequence.

Box spurs are certainly not fashionable in the hunting-field, and I

have often seen people looking askance at them; I suppose a particular

man misses the finish that the strap gives to the boot. But I don't

think that matters much, and to ladies it would not matter at all, as

the difference could very seldom be detected. In getting spurs or

boxes, I find it convenient to adhere always to the regulation cavalry

size, because then one's old spurs fit one's new boots, and _vice

versa_. It would be well to have a uniform standard for ladies' spurs

also. I have not ventured to say anything on the subject of spurs

generally--my own opinion is that legitimate occasion for their use is

excessively rare--and I dare say my suggestion may seem very trivial.

But I do not think any precaution is trivial which lessens, however

slightly, the risk of that most disagreeable and dangerous of

accidents--getting "hung up."

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

OXONIAN.

Ball. Col., Oxon., December, 1880.

* * * * *

SIR,--I cannot but feel flattered that my _Ladies on Horseback_ papers

should have called forth so large a correspondence. I have read every

letter most carefully, and on perusing that of "Hersilie," which

appeared in last week's issue, it struck me, from two of her

observations, that persons might suppose I had said something to

advocate the style of riding of which she approves. Permit me to say,

emphatically, that I have never done so, and that I fervently hope, in

the interests of my sex, that such a practice may never be introduced.

Modesty is, in my opinion, a woman's most exquisite attribute; once

this, or the semblance of it, is lost, her fairest charm is gone.

Nothing could be more ungraceful or more unwomanly than for women to

ride like men; and for short women or "little girls," it would be

_most_ objectionable. I maintain that a lady who knows how to sit has a

far safer and surer seat on a side-saddle than a man can ever have, and

that her grip of the pommels affords her infinitely greater security

than a man's "grip of the knees." "Hersilie" is correct in saying that

short-skirted hunting-habits frequently ride up, but she might just as

well say that hunting-hats frequently fall off, and that ladies' back

hair frequently comes down--giving these facts as a reason for

discarding head-gear, whether natural or artificial. As a rule, nothing

that is properly made and properly adjusted ever comes to grief. It is

by going to cheap and incompetent habit-makers, neglecting to stitch

elastics to their hats, and plaiting the hair too loosely (being also

too sparing of hair-pins), that ladies are inconvenienced and made to

blush. Two yards wide round the hem is ample for a hunting-habit, which

should fit like a glove about the hips. First-class tailors always have

a model horse, upon which they mount their lady customers, and thus

secure the right position for the slope at the knee, upon which so much

of the "set" of the skirt depends. A well-dressed woman, sitting

properly upon a well-constructed saddle, cannot, in my opinion, be

improved upon for style and comfort, and I hope it will be long indeed

before ladies strive to follow in any way the customs or callings of

the sterner sex. I may add that one of the chief recommendations of a

box spur is that it does _not_ get out of order, nor can it possibly

become entangled, unless the habit-skirt be one of those which some

ladies still persist in wearing--nearly twice too long, and quite

three times too wide. I earnestly hope "Hersilie" will take these

observations in good part. I make them in a perfectly friendly spirit.

I feel kindly towards all ladies, especially those who love horses; and

so I offer "Hersilie" a warm shake-hands, and hope she will fight me as

much as ever she likes--in a friendly way, of course!

Now, a word to "Jack Spur." I think he is under a mistake in averring

that there is any severity in the sheath spur. He says it must be

applied with a _kick_. As I always ride with one, and never with any

other description, I must entirely differ from him in this opinion. A

slight pressure is alone necessary. No gentlewoman would be guilty of

kicking her horse. I strongly object to rowels, as I hold to the

belief that almost anybody--except a really first-class

_equestrienne_--would be likely to hurt or worry the horse in an

unnecessary manner.

Strange to say, I had only got thus far in my letter when the post

brought me a communication from Stirling, signed "Reform," begging of

me to advocate ladies riding upon the cross-saddle. Were it not that

the writer says so many nice, kind things of myself (for which I beg

to thank her) I should be really angry at the tremendous display of

zeal thus wasted upon so unworthy a subject. It is true that a lady's

seat on horseback prevents her pressing her horse up to his bridle as

a man can, _unless_--but there _is_ the unless--she knows how to do

it. A good stout hunting-crop, properly used, will admirably fulfil

the duties of the second leg; but in all my experience, and it is a

pretty wide one, I have never seen more than two lady riders who had

any idea of making a horse gallop or sending him up to his bit. I do

not mean riding his head off--we unfortunately see too much of that;

but pressing him up to his work, and riding him with firm,

_accomplished_ hands, such as are only to be obtained by good

teaching, long and constant practice, and real love of the art. To

give some idea of the hazy notion which most persons have about

riding, a lady who came to call upon me in London, and who certainly

meant to be most kind and polite, said, as we sat at our afternoon

tea, "I am looking at your hands; how well-developed they are, from

_pulling your horses_, I suppose!" She thought I was offended when I

told her that my riding gloves were No. 6, and that I never pulled my

horses; but I am not captious, nor would it be possible to take

offence with one who so little intended to cause it.

The offer which I made at the conclusion of my _Ladies on Horseback_,

to answer private inquiries, has led to such a host of letters that,

although I regularly devote one hour every morning to the task of

replying to each in turn, I find it impossible to keep pace with the

work. Will you, therefore, sir, with the kindness extended to me upon

a former occasion, suffer me to answer a few of my correspondents

through the medium of your columns.

RICHARD R.--One measure three times daily, with a good double-handful

of Indian corn mixed through it.

CAPTAIN SWORDARM.--The oats will require two waters. The grains should

swell and separate, like rice boiled for curries.

EVELYN HARKESS.--Your parcel has not reached me. My tailor will

endeavour to please you.

JANE V.--A very cruel practice.

REFORM.--You will see that I have acknowledged your letter. Judging by

the postmark it should have come to hand three days ago, but you gave

the wrong address, and it went on a seeking expedition. "Dublin" will

at any time find me. This is also for "Quilp," "B. Max," and "Violet

Grey."

ELLA.--Your horse is evidently a rough trotter, and can never be

pleasant to ride. Try to exchange or sell him.

MARY PERPLEXED.--The pommels of your saddle are most likely too far

apart; that is, the leaping head is placed too low. If you cannot

change it, ride with a longer stirrup-leather. I have been lately

shown the preparation for an improved side-saddle, by Messrs. F. V.

Nicholls & Co., of 2 Jermyn Street, comprising a patented arrangement

for the third crutch or leaping-head. I think that this will be a

great boon to those ladies who, like myself, have suffered

inconvenience and accident from the leaping-head being a fixture, and

not in the position required to afford a proper degree of support, and

at the same time to admit of the stirrup-leather being used of correct

length for an easy, secure, and graceful seat. The improvement of the

new saddle consists in a sliding socket or apparatus, by which the

leaping-head can be moved freely backward or forward to any position,

and instantly fixed firmly by the rider herself, thus enabling a lady

to alter at any time the length of her stirrup, and yet gain every

requisite support from the third crutch. Another little innovation by

the same experienced saddlers in riding bridles, an adaptation of my

favourite double-ring snaffle. The loose rings of the snaffle have

some extra loops, appended to which is a short noseband, acted upon by

one rein, giving a powerful effect in stopping a runaway horse, whilst

the use of the other rein singly has the pleasant and easy nature of

the ordinary snaffle-bridle. The principle of this bridle, which is

called "the improved Newmarket snaffle" is, of course, equally

applicable to the use of persons of either sex.

GILES.--Have the shoe taken off and give him rest.

URSA MAJOR.--There is no real cure for ringbone. Do not waste your

money.

CLAUDE, EMMA VANE, N. PARKES, HENRY B., RHODA, NELLIE K., and

thirty-one others, write to me for--photographs! I am sorry that "for

lack of gold" I cannot supply a kindly public with my pictures, and I

am not vain enough to state publicly where they may be had.

NIMROD.--Pleader was purchased from me last week by the Earl of

Eglinton. It will, therefore, be unnecessary for me to reply to any

further inquiries respecting him. I named his price and made no

change, nor was I asked to do so.

CROPPER.--You were evidently sitting loosely, and thus suffered for

your carelessness. You will not be caught napping the next time.

ANXIOUS, MARTHA, and a host of others have asked me a very familiar

question, "How I learned to ride?" I have hitherto avoided answering,

rather than introduce a name whose owner did not wish me to do so. But

I think I may hope to win his pardon. Most, if not all, my skill in

the saddle is mainly due to the kind and untiring patience of my dear

old friend and teacher, Mr. Allan McDonogh, who--despite his

threescore years and ten--was, up to the time of his lamentable

accident, ever ready to act as my pilot and instructor.