MRS. POWER O'DONOGHUE (Nannie Lambert). (continued 3)

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—

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 Phœnix 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 Phœnix 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 à la cavalière, 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 à la cavalière, 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 versâ. 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 équestrienne—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.