1Q2 : t \ ^i THE HORSE 



vertebrae a true arch is formed, and according to the slope or fall of the 

 quarters will it be useful in carrying weight ; but this is quite irrespective 

 of the loin, which may be arched or flat in conjunction with either forma- 

 tion. It is, however, most common to find an arched loin united with an 

 inclined pelvis, and when the two are found together, the horse possessing 

 this formation may be considered so far as "up to weight." Sometimes we 

 see the pelvis inclined, but the tail set on high, and the loin hollow, and 

 then we may surely predicate that there will be a want of power in these 

 parts, and that the 7 stone of Lord Redesdale will be quite sufficient for 

 the animal to carry. With this objectionable shape, there is a hollow on 

 each side of the croup, which is very characteristic of the defect, and which 

 is carefully eschewed by the experienced horseman. If the spine between 

 the two supports afforded by the fore and hind extremities were really an 

 arch, length would but little affect it, for we know that an arch of ninety 

 feet span, is no stronger than one of a hundred feet, if both are properly 

 constructed ; but being nearly a straight line, with its component parts 

 kept in their proper places, by a series of levers and pulleys, length tells 

 most unfavourably; and "a short back, with plenty of length below" is the 

 height of a horseman's ambition to possess. Mr. Percivall has fallen into 

 a strange error in estimating the advantages of a long back, as may be 

 readily seen on an examination of the following passage : " Regarding the 

 dorsal portion of the spine, with its superimposed burthen, as a pole or 

 lever, supported in front by the fore limbs, and behind by the back limbs, 

 after the manner of a barrel of beer, or a sedan between its bearers ; it is 

 manifest, that the greater its length, the greater must be the leverage, and 

 consequent reduction of the weight of the burthen. On this principle, the 

 legs of the long-backed horse are actually sustaining less load than those of 

 the short-backed horse, even though their riders or burthens may be of 

 equivalent weights, from the circumstance of their operating at a greater 

 distance from the load." The fallacy of this argument is apparent to every 

 person who has the slightest knowledge of mechanical powers ; but as my 

 readers may not all be in a position to estimate its value, I shall just 

 make a few observations upon it, as I have heard it adduced on several 

 occasions, to support the advantage of a long back. Now we will suppose a 

 weight of 500 pounds on a plank, supported upon four props, two being five 

 feet from the other two, and the pairs one foot apart, resembling, in fact, 

 the relative position of the feet of a horse. Let the whole be arranged on 

 a weighing-machine, so that only the four legs touch its table and take the 

 weight. Then remove the two pairs of legs to a distance of six feet, and 

 again take the weight. According to Mr. Percivall it ought to be less than 

 before, but, tested by actual experiment, there will not be the hundredth 

 part of a grain variation, even if the instrument is sufficiently delicate to 

 register that weight. A. and B. carry a weight between them, suspended 

 to a pole, and they find it more convenient to have that pole tolerably long, 

 because they can shift the weight from one to the other more easily than 

 with a shorter one, but they carry the same weight in either case. A. can 

 raise it by means of his long lever more easily than with a short one, but 

 he can only effect this by making use of B.'s hand as a fulcrum, and for the 

 moment throwing the weight off himself upon it, while B. returns the com- 

 pliment in his turn, and both are relieved. For the mere purpose of 



