Читать книгу The Horsewoman: A Practical Guide to Side-Saddle Riding, 2nd. Ed - Alice M. Hayes - Страница 6

Table of Contents

A hunter suitable for a lady should be temperate, sound, strong, safe and clever over fences, and fast enough for his country. As extra fatigue is entailed on a lady’s mount by the side position of his rider, he should be quite 21 lbs. above the weight he has to carry. As a rule, he should not be younger than seven, and should have had, at least, two seasons’ hunting in which to learn his business. Fig. 2 shows us a typical high-class Leicestershire hunter; and Fig. 3, a good Australian hunter.

Mr. Vansittart’s Romance (Fig. 4) was one of the nicest of the many Australian horses I rode, during my sojourns in India, between the years 1885 and 1891. He was thoroughbred and was the winner of several races on the flat and across country. In those days, the idiotic custom of docking horses had not found favour in Australia.

Fig. 2.—Miss Burnaby’s Butterfly.

The requirements of the various hunting countries differ greatly. For the Shires, a lady would want a well-bred galloper which can “spread himself out” over his fences, because there is almost always a ditch or a rail on one side or the other of the Midland hedges. Temperate he must be, because the fields in Leicestershire, for instance, are so large that there is often a crowd of riders waiting their turn at the only practicable place in a jump, filing through a gate, or waiting en masse in a cramped space at the covert side, and a horse who displays temper on such occasions is naturally regarded as a nuisance and danger by the rest of the field. Besides, it must be remembered that nothing tends to spoil the nerves of any rider, man or woman, more than attempting to hunt in a big country like Leicestershire on a bad-tempered horse, and especially on a refuser which has a tendency to rear. On no account should a lady ride a roarer, although the artful dealer may assure her that the “whistle” which the animal makes, will be a secret unknown to any one except herself and the horse. In the large majority of cases, roaring is a disease which increases with time, and the accompanying noise is distressing to all lovers of horses who hear it. Kickers, even with red bows on their tails, should on no account be ridden; for they are a danger to man, woman, horse, and hound, and are the cause of many accidents every hunting season. It would appear that ladies—not those of the present day, let us hope—were not sufficiently careful in insisting on this last-mentioned requirement in their hunters; for Captain Elmhirst, writing in 1883, says, “Horse dealers, farmers, and—we are sorry to add—ladies must especially be avoided; for who ever saw a vicious kicker that was not ridden by one of these three?”

Fig. 3.—Miss Neil’s Jackeroo.

Apart from the danger to others, it is obvious that no sane woman would ride a horse which would be likely to kick her in the event of a fall. When I was in India, I had to get rid of a horse because of his vicious tendency in this respect. He was a good-looking Australian, a clever fencer, and had a nice mouth, but so vicious that when we first got him, he used to rush open-mouthed at any one who went near him, except his syce. My husband took him in hand, and he became sufficiently civilised to take carrots from me. When I rode him, I found he was always looking out for an excuse to “play up,” or to lash out at other horses. In order to test his jumping, a lightweight gentleman rider one day rode him over a made course. The animal blundered badly at one of the fences, threw his rider, and while the man was lying on his back on the ground the horse deliberately put a fore foot on him, and would have doubtless broken his back, if my husband, who was standing near the fence, had not pulled the vicious brute off. We got rid of him, and I heard shortly afterwards that he had killed his jockey, a native, in a hurdle race at Calcutta, by the adoption of similar vicious tactics. It would have been criminal to have taken such a horse as that into any hunting-field.

Fig. 4.—Mr. Vansittart’s Romance.

A hunter should have good shoulders (long, flat, and oblique) and a comparatively high forehand; for horses which are lower in front than at the croup are uncomfortable to ride, and there is generally some difficulty in retaining the side saddle in its place on their backs. The height of a hunter will depend greatly on that of his rider. For instance, a tall woman with a “comfortable” figure would be suitably mounted on a horse 16 hands or more high, whereas a light girl of medium height would find an animal of say 15–2 as much as she could comfortably manage; for we must remember that big horses, as a rule, take a good deal of “collecting.” A small horse generally stays better, can come out oftener, is handier, and not so likely to hurt one if he falls. For the Shires I do not think a lady’s hunter should be much under 15–2, and he must be a big jumper and well bred. Hunting women, as a rule, do not pay much attention to the good looks of their horses, for hunting is not a church parade, and the finest performer over a country is always admired and coveted whatever his appearance may be. The same may be said about colour; although, as a grey horse is conspicuous enough to be singled out of a crowd of bays and browns, a lady who is at all “impartial” in her seat would do well to select a horse wearing a less noticeable tint of coat. As rearing is the worst vice a lady’s mount can possess, no horse who has a tendency to rear should be ridden by a woman, as from her position in the side-saddle she is far more helpless than a man on such an animal. A lady’s hunter should not have too light a mouth, but should go nicely up to his bridle, and not resent the use of the curb, which is sometimes necessary in avoiding danger. He should on no account be inclined to pull. A perfect hunter is like a thorough good sportsman, who regards his share of bangs and blows as all in the day’s work. As the majority of hunters have their own likes and dislikes about jumping certain kinds of fences, a lady should know precisely what to expect from her mount and what his jumping capabilities are, before taking him into the hunting-field, which is not the place for experiments. I had many pleasant days out hunting with the Quorn, Belvoir, Cottesmore, and North Cheshire on the Irish mare, Salary (Fig. 5).

In summing up the requirements of a hunter for either man or woman, I cannot do better than to quote the following sound advice from Whyte Melville: “People talk about size and shape, shoulders, quarters, blood, bone and muscle, but for my part, give me a hunter with brains. He has to take care of the biggest fool of the two, and think for both.”

Fig. 5.—Irish mare, Salary.

To be capable of safely crossing a stiff country, a horse requires at least a few falls—which had best be shared by a man—and much experience, which cannot be obtained without time. Hence, I would advise no lady, however well she may ride, to hunt on a young horse, who will always require a good deal of time in which to learn his business. It is certainly no pleasure to be on the back of a horse who is inclined to drop his hind legs in the ditch on the other side, or to “chance” a post and rails. Many young horses are so reluctant in going at a fence, and in “spreading themselves out,” that they are no good except when ridden by a man who can use his legs, which is a feat that a woman is unable to accomplish.

A perfect hack, whether for man or woman, is far more difficult to find at the present time than a good hunter, and when found will command a fancy price. The ideal hack is a showy, well-bred animal of the officer’s charger type, which has been thoroughly well “made” in all his paces. Such an animal appears at his best when executing a slow, collected canter, with arched neck and looking full of fire and gaiety, though ridden with an almost slack rein, and intent only on rendering prompt obedience to the slightest indication of his rider. In Germany and France the hacks ridden in the Tiergarten and Bois, for instance, are thoroughly “made,” and compare very favourably with the pulling, half-broken brutes on which many ladies appear in the Row. In former times, before the introduction of the leaping-head made hunting possible for women, more attention was paid to the breaking and training of hacks than at present, on account of the great demand for “complete ladies’ horses.” The advent of the bicycle for ladies has almost abolished hacking as a pastime and means of exercise, and hence the difficulty in finding a well-broken animal for this work. The best substitute is, I think, a good polo pony, because the requirements of that game demand that the animal should be temperate, handy, and capable of being ridden with a slack rein. The polo pony Pat (Fig. 6) is a perfect hack, with a snaffle-bridle mouth, and so steady and clever that he can canter round the proverbial sixpence. He has played well in several polo matches.

Fig. 6.—Polo pony, Pat.

Although many ladies in this country have never enjoyed the luxury of riding a high-caste Arab, we occasionally see these animals in the Row and hunting-field. The sight of an “Arabi tattoo” to an old Indian like myself, revives many pleasant memories of delightful equine friends in the East. The Arab is par excellence the most perfect hack for a lady, and I think it would be ungrateful of me in this new edition to omit the portrait of my Arab pony Freddie (Fig. 7), even though the cut of the riding-habit is out of date.

Although a good horsewoman 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.”