London, December, 1880.
Sir,—I cannot but feel flattered that Mrs. O'Donoghue has so frankly and kindly invited me to "break a lance" with her. I do, with both my hands and with all my heart, reciprocate her "warm shake-hands," and, vizor down and spear in rest, ride full tilt at her in fair and open fight to do my poor devoirs, if you will allow me once again to enter the lists in your paper. If Mrs. O'Donoghue will read her paper in your number for November 27th she will find these words: "My companion was in ease while I was in torture." Why was this? "Because he had a leg on either side of his mount, his weight equally distributed, and an equal support upon both sides; in fact, he had, as all male riders have, the advantage of a double support in the rise; consequently, at the moment when his weight was removed from the saddle, it was thrown upon both sides, and this equal distribution enabled him to accomplish without fatigue that slow rise and fall which is so tiring to a lady whose weight, when she is out of the saddle, is thrown entirely upon one delicate limb, thus inducing her to fall again as soon as possible."
Again, in the very next paragraph, Mrs. O'Donoghue says, "A man will be able to stand in his stirrups for a considerable time, even to ride at a gallop, so doing because he transfers his weight equally to his feet; but how rarely do we see a lady balanced upon one leg! The sensation is not agreeable, and would, moreover, be unpleasantly productive of wrung backs." These are verbatim extracts from "Part Three continued." I think my preference for a leg on each side of my horse, and a distribution of my weight equally on to each foot, is most eloquently and forcibly justified by Mrs. O'Donoghue when she wrote the above. I did not suggest, or at any rate did not mean to suggest, that she advocated a cross-seat for ladies, but that she unmistakably pointed out the great advantages of such a seat her own words abundantly testify. Again, some of the healthiest children I have ever seen are poor little gipsy girls, who, from being able to mount a donkey, have always ridden astride when once past the pannier period of their nomadic life. Also, some of the short, stout peasant women of Normandy ride thus, as well as the Indian squaws, and certainly these will compare favourably as to robust health with their side-saddle sisters of civilisation; to say nothing of the South American ladies. We have also the testimony of many lady travellers as to the superiority of a cross-seat when horseback is the only mode of transit. I cannot admit that in any case, even for "short women" or "little girls," it would be "most objectionable," that is, from a hygienic point of view. On the score of modesty, de gustibus, &c. &c. But then I allow a great latitude on such a point (our highest order carries the truest motto, honi soit qui mal y pense). In fact, I do not regard it as a question of modesty at all; simply of convenience, efficiency, and comfort. Mrs. O'Donoghue also says how rare it is to meet with a perfect lady's horse. "In all my wide experience I have met but two." Why? because a lady (and mainly on account of her side-seat, as I believe) is heavily handicapped as compared with a man in her choice of a horse, or, I should say, in her requirements from her horse. Every remark in the whole of the papers, "Ladies on Horseback," as to kindness, temper, and gentleness in the treatment of a horse I most cordially endorse, and I have to thank the fair authoress for the pleasure I have had in their perusal.
A word or two in answer to "The Ladybird." In reply to her opening remarks, I merely observe, "use is second nature," and had she happened to have lived before "Anne of Bohemia" introduced side-saddles she would have had no room for "indignation"; possibly in that case she would have always ridden pillion. Oh! if we could only once realise how much we are the slaves of fashion, how soon would the yoke be broken! Contrast the crinoline of 1857 and the umbrella-case attire of 1877; put a fashionable belle of the latter alongside her sister of only twenty years earlier mode. What a satire on taste, on modesty so called! But I would also ask "Ladybird" (if it be worth her while) to read again my letter of the 18th, and she will find I did not complain of the side-saddle, which I have an idea I can use, but pointed out its great inferiority (which I maintain) to the cross-saddle. The best test perhaps is the foreign one. Mount a horse without a saddle, but properly bitted, and then decide which is the more natural and easier seat; in one case you feel an appendage; in the other almost part of the horse. In the name of womanhood I repudiate the suggestion of an "underhand way of punishment," being "a real feminine species of torture." Perhaps it is, under the skirts of a habit, possible to "dig, dig, dig," for no one sees, truly; but surely no lady could, or would, spur her horse for the sake of tormenting him; in my attire at any rate it would not be unseen. The extraordinary teaching that a "horse can do no wrong" is an axiom with which I cannot agree. I have been mounted on horses that "could do no right," or if they could do it would not. And it has taken me all my time and taxed all my energies to prevent them from doing the things which they ought not to do; for I do object to a horse attempting to erect himself in a perpendicular attitude, either from a fore or aft basis, when I am on his back, and I rejoice to know that I have (in such cases) on each foot a sharp spur to use with him as a cogent argument in convincing him that ordinary progression on four legs is infinitely better than saltimbantique performance on two—at least from my, his rider's, point of view. On a well-bred, highly-trained animal a spur is scarce ever required to be used, but even then the emergency may arise. I really laughed outright when I read what you, Sir, said of the "shoals of letters" arriving from fair correspondents "desiring to ride" as "Hersilie" suggested, but this only convinces me that there are many ladies who feel that it would be—just exactly as I described it—"a new life on horseback." I could add much more on the subject, but have already trespassed too long on your space. I only repeat, let any lady once fairly try it, and she will always prefer it. I do not for a moment imagine she will always do it. I admit we must conform to custom, and I strongly deprecate individual eccentricity, especially in a lady. I shall continue to read all that appears in your paper on this and kindred topics with deep interest. Again, I specially thank Mrs. Power O'Donoghue for her genial and kindly expression of goodwill, and again heartily shake the shadowy hand she offers. I quite believe a No. 6 gloved hand can control a horse as well as any 7, 7½, or 8, if it only be possessed of the cunning. And thanking you, sir, for your kindness, allow me as a woman to have the last word, and again assert, "the cross seat is much the better."
Yours, &c.
Hersilie.
Ambleside (pro tem.), Dec. 1880.
Sir,—Kindly permit me to say a few words in reply to "Hersilie's" letter, which appeared in your issue of last week. I am referred to my own paper in your number for November 27, but "Hersilie" does not quote correctly, or perhaps the error is the printer's. I think I said "My companion was at ease, whilst I was in torture." Now, I merely related the incident with which these words were associated in order to instruct ladies how to avoid the double rise—not to advocate for a single instant their riding upon a cross-saddle. I am quite ready to reiterate my statement that the position of a man enables him to ride a rough or clumsy trotter with infinitely greater ease than can a woman; but women should not, in my opinion, ride such at all, nor should I have done so, as related in your paper of November 27, were it not that my host, an immensely heavy man, had none but big rough horses in his stable, and I was obliged either to accept a mount upon one of them, for at least once, or give offence to a dear kind friend, which I would not do to avoid even a greater amount of inconvenience than I experienced upon the occasion in question.