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.