THE ETHICS OF HORSE-KEEPING. 9 



strange house, always greets me when I come out 

 with an eager, enthusiastic neigh, as if she had begun 

 to despair of seeing her master again. 



Nevertheless, whether from the want of ancestral 

 usage or otherwise, horses, it must be granted, are 

 less sociable with men than are dogs. Nor can I 

 agree with the remark recorded as having been made 

 by the famous sportsman, Thomas Assheton Smith, 

 (but perhaps incorrectly,) that "horses are far more 

 sensible than dogs." The converse, I should say, is 

 true. Dogs are more sensible, more intelligent, more 

 affectionate, and, as a rule, more trustworthy than 

 horses. So much justice requires that we should 

 admit, although the contrary is often maintained by 

 persons well informed upon the subject. Who, indeed, 

 has not heard the intelligence of the horse eloquently 

 defended by some hard-headed, hard-drinking old 

 horseman, who would seem to enjoy a perfect im- 

 munity from all sentimental considerations ? But he 

 does not. "If we could have come upon Diogenes 

 suddenly," Thackeray somewhere remarks, " he would 

 probably have been found whimpering in his tub over 

 a sentimental romance." And so the old horseman, 

 being fond of horses, knowing them, but knowing- 

 nothing else, deriving both his livelihood and his 

 pleasure from them, unconsciously exaggerates their 

 good qualities. But, on the other hand, the horse is 

 far more intelligent than most people suppose, and 

 there are certain qualities in which he excels all 

 other dumb animals. " The conspicuous merit of the 

 horse, which has given him the dearly paid honor of 

 sharing in our wars," says Mr. Hamerton, in a charm- 

 ing essay, " is his capacity for being disciplined ; and 



