The Horsewoman: A Practical Guide to Side-Saddle Riding, 2nd. Ed. Alice M. Hayes

may be satisfied with any animal which is fit for a man, provided he is steady to mount and does not require an unusual amount of collecting; it is not safe to put an inexperienced or nervous rider on a horse that has not been taught to carry a habit, which a groom can do by riding the animal with a rug or dark overcoat on the near side, and letting it flop about. Horses rarely object to the presence of a skirt, though I have known cases in which the animal went almost wild with terror when the right leg was put over the crutch. It is, therefore, wise to accustom a horse to the skirt and leg by means of a groom.

      The fact of a lady having to ride in a side-saddle, puts her under the following three disadvantages as compared to a man in a “cross-saddle”: she is, as a rule, unable to mount without assistance; she cannot apply the pressure of the right leg to the side of the horse; and it is difficult for her “to drop her hands” in order to pull him together. The judicious application of a crop or ash-plant (my husband, though an Irishman, swears by a Neilgherry cane) may partly make up for the absence of a leg on the off side; but, however well a woman may ride, she should not have a horse which “plays up” when he is being mounted, or sprawls about and requires constant pulling together when she is in the saddle.

Fig. 7.—Arab pony, Freddie.

      The style of hack should be in thorough keeping with that of the rider. A slight lady has a greater range of choice in horseflesh than a portly dame, who would be best suited with a weight-carrying hunter or compact cob. The height might vary from 14–2 to 15–3. I hardly think that even a small woman would look well on a pony which is less than 13–3.

      A beginner should be put on a lazy animal, whether horse or pony, that will condescend to trot or canter for only a short distance, which will be quite far enough for its inexperienced rider. Many parents who are supervising the riding instruction of their children, look too far ahead when selecting a mount. Instead of purchasing a steady, plodding, though not unwilling slave, they invest in a second- or third-stage animal, which is absolutely useless to a beginner, because it wants more riding than she can give it. Such a young lady needs a thoroughly steady animal, no matter how old or ugly it may be, and she will probably learn more about riding on it in a month, than she would in a year on a horse which would have to be led by a groom, on account of its unsteadiness. A good donkey is a most useful conveyance for young girls, as he can generally be trusted to take things quietly, and will not unduly exert himself without being called upon to do so.

      For the benefit of inexperienced riders, I must not omit to mention that the measurement of horses is taken from the highest point of the withers to the ground. A horse is measured by hands and inches, not, as in humans, by feet and inches. A hand is 4 in., therefore an animal of 15 hands is 5 ft. in height; 16 hands, 5 ft. 4 in.; 17 hands, 5 ft. 8 in.; and one of 17–2—which would be a gigantic height in a saddle horse, but not in a cart horse—would be 5 ft. 10 in. high. A woman of medium height, like myself, who stands 5 ft. 3 in. in “stocking feet”—a height, by-the-bye, which is accorded to the Venus de Medici (we might make use of that fact on being termed “little”)—would find a horse of 15–1 or 15–2 a very nice, useful height; though she need by no means limit herself to height with any horse which is springy and active, does not require a great amount of collecting, is easy in his paces, and has a good mouth. The bigger a horse is, the more fatiguing do we find him to ride, if his mouth, manners, and paces are not thoroughly “made.” The late Esa bin Curtis, a celebrated Arab horse dealer, in speaking of big buck-jumping Walers, said, “God hath not made man equal unto them,” and, however well a woman may ride, it is no pleasure to find herself breathless and exhausted in her efforts to control such animals. On the other hand, many small horses which play up are most difficult to sit, for, although they may not take their rider’s breath away by their display of physical power, they are like quicksilver on a frying-pan, and highly test our agility in the matter of balance and grip.

      I cannot conclude this chapter on ladies’ horses without expressing my strong condemnation of the senseless and cruel practice of docking riding horses, which has nothing in its favour except its conformance to fashion, and which in this case is disgusting cruelty. Thoroughbred horses are never docked, whether they be used for racing, steeplechasing or hunting, and it is a monstrous thing to mutilate unfortunate half-breds, especially mares, and condemn them to be tortured by flies, and to have the most sensitive parts of their bodies turned into a safe camping ground for insects, simply because these poor animals have a stain in their pedigree. In summer time, when flies are troublesome, we may often see a long-tailed brood mare at grass protecting both herself and her suckling foal from these irritating pests by the free use of her tail; but docked mares are deprived of this means of driving away insects, and have been known to unwittingly injure their young by kicking and plunging violently in their efforts to rid themselves of attacking flies. The unfortunate foal is unable to take its natural nourishment in peace, and consequently does not thrive so well as does the offspring of an unmutilated mother. One of the feeble arguments set forth in favour of docking is, that it prevents a hunter from soiling the coat of his rider by his tail; but, as my husband truly says in his new edition of Veterinary Notes for Horse Owners, “This idea is an absurdity, because an undocked horse cannot reach his rider with his tail, if it is banged short, which is a fact known to all military men. Besides, mud on a hunting coat is ‘clean dirt.’ ” The actual pain caused by the operation is trivial as compared with the life-long misery to which tailless horses are subjected, for we deprive them for ever of their caudal appendage, and the ridiculous stump sticking up where the tail ought to be, is as ungraceful as it is indecent, especially in the case of mares. Our friend, the late Dr. George Fleming, says in The Wanton Mutilation of Animals, “nothing can be more painful and disgusting to the real horseman and admirer of this most symmetrically formed and graceful animal than the existence of this most detestable and torturing fashion; and those who perform the operation or sanction it are not humane, nor are they horsemen, but rather are they horse-maimers and promoters of the worst form of cruelty to animals. Let anyone go to Rotten Row during the season, and satisfy himself as to the extent to which the fashion prevails, and the repulsive appearance which otherwise beautiful horses present. The astonishing and most saddening feature of the equestrian promenade is the presence of ladies riding mares which are almost tailless. Surely a plea might be entered here for the use of a fig-leaf to clothe the nude.” I feel sure that if my sex had a voice in the matter, this wholesale mutilation of mares would soon cease. Dr. Fleming, writing in the Nineteenth Century over twenty years ago, said: “I hope and believe that when the horse-loving public and the friends of animals begin to realise how cruel and degrading some of these mutilations are, they will not be long in having them suppressed”; but the horse-lovers do not appear to have done much in this matter so far. This writer tells us that “the ancient Welsh laws protected it” (the horse’s tail) “from harm at the hands of man,” and that “an ecclesiastical canon was issued in order to prevent it from being damaged in the eighth century.” Cannot our laws do something to protect mares, at any rate, from the cruelty of docking in the twentieth century? Dr. Fleming, in reviewing the history of docking from its earliest times, tells us that he saw an old print “which represented a very emaciated horse, with a fashionable tail, standing in a luxuriant meadow, his body covered with flies, which prevented him from grazing, and from which he could not free himself; a notice board in the field announced that horses were taken in to graze, those with undocked tails at six shillings a week and docked ones at eighteenpence.”

      When Voltaire visited this country in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, he was so impressed with our barbarity, especially in the cutting off the tails of our horses, that he could not refrain from giving vent to one of his pungent sarcasms in the following epigram:—

      “Vous fiers Anglois

       Barbares que vous êtes

       Coupez la tête aux rois

       Et la queue à vos bêtes;

       Mais les François,

       Polis et droits,

       Aiment les lois,

       Laissent la queue aux bêtes

       Et la tête à leurs rois.”