under the control of his rider that, by the combination of the effects of the legs and hands, our slightest movements suffice to direct the energy of this powerful animal, according to our will." Nothing could be truer. But why does he maintain on page 178 of the same edition, that the only true kind of riding should be done by " legs without hands, and hands without legs " ? How did he not see that these two assertions are contradictory ? The office of the legs of the rider is to make the horse energetic in his hind quarters, and that of the hands, to make him "amiable in his mouth." Without the simultaneous co-operation of these two " aids," we may do wonderful tricks, but not good horsemanship.

The fact that Baucher broke his horses with the two " aids," and afterwards used only one of them, proves that he deceived himself by thinking that he had obtained perfect equilibrium with " legs without hands and hands without legs." But as the legs are necessary for impulsion and the hands for direction, he hastened to go back to the two " aids."

Under these conditions, why did he abandon an "aid" which he was obliged to use every moment ? Is the proof required ? When working on " two tracks " without the legs, there will be nothing to indicate to the horse that his haunches should move, especially if we want him to do the "two tracks" at the canter or passage. If we demand the Spanish trot without legs, the horse will raise his fore legs a little without gaining ground, but nothing will give him the impulsion necessary for the trot. Change the " aids," and demand the same work without using the hands. The action of the legs to obtain the elevation and extension of the fore legs will have the result of sending the horse abruptly forward, because there is nothing to restrain him and to raise the fore hand. It will be the same in all other movements.

I admit, however, that when the education of the school horse has been carried to its highest degree of perfection, he