A good foot is an indispensable adjunct. I am not in favour of over long, or excessively sloping pasterns, although they are preferable to those that are either too much shortened, or unduly upright. Where the latter defect exists, it indicates, in my opinion, a thickening and rigidity of the flexor muscles, and produces an unsafe method of planting the feet, particularly in walking. A light, supple pliant pastern is a great beauty. I have often watched a thoroughbred racer trotting over turf. The fetlock actually tips the ground, or seems to do so, at every step, and if elasticity and slenderness of this portion of a horse’s anatomy were to be regarded as indications of weakness, very few finely-bred animals would ever pass the post at all.
HOOFS.
Strong high hoofs, with broad, firm, well-shaped heels, are most desirable; though I know that in saying this I am challenging a large array of contrary opinions. I have heard many persons found their liking for low hoofs on the ground that an excess of horny substance checks expansion, and pinches the internal substance. This is, with all due respect, a fallacy. The hoof cannot press upon or injure the internal portion of the foot, any more than a well-developed skull can bruise or hamper the healthy brain which it has been created to protect. I cannot believe in the excellence of short, straight hoofs, with narrow heels, nor can I forego my opinion, although once or twice I have had to fight for it, that the best bred and safest horses have their feet standing close together, with the toes pointing forwards, in preference to a tendency to point either outwardly or in. The leg should be straight and firm, the knee-joint flat and broad, the shin hard, the forearm lengthy, and the limbs large and well-developed where they emerge from, or rather join, the trunk. The thorax should be wide; a narrow one is invariably accompanied by low withers (a great defect), and by upright shoulders, which is another. As it is, moreover, sacred to the purposes of respiration and circulation, its proper dimensions should be regarded as an all-important point.
A nice horse, in colour, for a lady to ride is a dark chestnut or bay. Browns and blacks are generally serviceable also, but greys and roans are objectionable, owing to the hairs coming off upon the habit. About fifteen-two is a good height for a horse which is to carry a rider of average proportions. He should have well-set sloping shoulders—oblique pasterns—clean, shapely legs—firm feet—and long, easy, swinging action, which is vastly better and more comfortable than that chin-knocking motion which lovers of what is showy run after and affect. The lady’s horse should carry his head handsomely, being neither a star-gazer nor a borer, and his back should be somewhat longer than might be thought altogether desirable in a horse intended for a man to ride, in order to give ample room for the side-saddle. He should have a moderately high forehand, be firm and flexible in all his movements, and be at least 20 lb. above the weight he is meant to carry; by which I mean that if you are, say, 8½ st., or from that to 9 st., and that your saddle and appurtenances (including your riding gear) weigh 2 st. extra, or a trifle over, you should select for your use an animal well up to 13 st. or thereabouts. To overweight a horse is both cruel and unwise, especially when a lady is the aggressor—which sounds strange, as female equestrians generally ride with tolerably light hands, and rarely stop out for any great length of time together, except on particular occasions. Nevertheless, their position on horseback, sitting far back and in a side attitude, entails a good deal of additional fatigue upon an animal; nor has the lady’s horse the advantage (a great one) which pertains to that of a man—namely, being eased now and again by the rider standing in the stirrups when galloping, or jumping off for a moment or two when opportunity offers.
I have always thought it a pity that ladies do not select their saddle horses with a view to their being somewhat in keeping with their own style of appearance. It would be an immense advantage if they did. A slender, willowy figure will always look best on a light-limbed animal—one of spirit and breeding, full of quality, and as nearly as possible thoroughbred—whereas a rider of more matronly build should select an animal of medium height, with broad, strong back, powerful quarters, big, healthy hocks, and stoutly-built forelegs. She will look infinitely better on him, and be more safely carried, than if mounted upon a slender weed.
So much for appearance. Now a brief word about other matters.
Do not buy a horse that is not a good walker, however perfect he may seem to be in other respects. I have always attached great importance to an animal’s walking powers. It is a pace more generally adopted than any other when out for a pleasure ride, and if you really want to enjoy this last-named recreation, have nothing to do with an indifferent walker, though he be offered you for a song.
About four and a half miles an hour is a good walking pace—excellent, indeed, when leaving stable. The horse that accomplishes it will generally walk at the rate of five miles an hour when coming home. A good walker will neither stumble, drop, shuffle, nor break. Everybody knows what the first and third mentioned of these defects signify. “Dropping” is a most uncomfortable fault: a sort of inclination to duck downwards in front, or indeed more generally with the hinder part of the body. Few young horses that are not overweighted are apt to do it, and when they do, it is a sign of weakness of the muscles; they are unsafe to ride. “Breaking” is an inclination to get into a canter, or trot, and is one of the symptoms of defective training. I like to see a horse walk steadily down hill, with head well up, and feet firmly planted. It is an excellent test.