there is no question of fine equitation, for he cannot bear the rassembler. We should simply require him to go forward, and we should feel happy if we make him a passable hack.

Baucher appears to me to be absolutely wrong in stating that we should destroy the " instinctive forces " of the horse, and act only on the " transmitted forces " This theory is so strange and so contrary to the nature of things, that I cannot help thinking that the expression used by Baucher incorrectly translated his thoughts.

The " instinctive forces " are apparently the natural forces, or muscular power. If it is destroyed, what remains ? What are the " transmitted forces " of which Baucher talks ? Whence do they come ? We can transmit an electric current or a moral effect, but to transmit a force we must, first of all, produce it, and we know that the rider should not display force, because he ought always to remain supple ; and even if he displayed force, it would be insignificant as compared to that of the horse.

What means can the rider employ ? He has only his legs and hands.^[1]

Without doubt the legs awake the vigour of the horse when they are well closed, but they do not add any force to it. They simply stimulate him to put forth the energy he possesses.

The hands ought not to display force. If, in an exceptional case, they make an effort, its object will only be to thwart that of the horse. They do not transmit force to him, but more or less check his force.

Supposing that two jockeys are finishing almost together, and that their horses are equally exhausted. If one of them is very strong, he can, by displaying great energy of hands, legs, and whip, appear to communicate the force of propulsion to