46 THEORY OF HORSE-CONTROL. 



we would do, were we sometimes to use them as definite 

 orders ; at other times, as the means of inflicting punish- 

 m.ent for faults which the horse may or may not know he 

 has committed. 



The fact that the horse, like a child, has a keen sense of 

 injustice, fully accounts for the readiness with which his 

 temper may be spoiled by punishment unconnected in his 

 mind with the committal of a fault. Nothing can be more 

 opposed to reason than to reward a horse for doing wrong, 

 and to punish him for obedience, as we may frequently 

 see done by the driver of a jibber, who pats the animal on 

 the neck and speaks encouragingly to him when he stops, 

 and flogs and rates him as soon as he starts. 



In the judicious use of the voice as a punishment by 

 threatening, or as a reward by the expression of approval, 

 there need be no fear of ambiguity ; for the horse is in no 

 way likely to mistake a harsh tone for a caress, or a soft 

 one for a rebuke. As I have previously pointed out, the 

 horse's power of drawing conclusions is so small, that, as a 

 rule, he is unable to associate in his mind one event with 

 another, unless their connection is well marked and 

 extremely close as regards duration of time. We all know 

 that pain inflicted in the ordinary way with whip or spur, 

 for, say, biting, or unsteadiness when being mounted, is far 

 more likely to aggravate the particular fault than to cure 

 it. But if the correction be carried out as explained 

 respectively on pages 129 and 352, the horse as a rule will 

 readily associate the idea of punishment with that of 

 wrong-doing, on account of the sensation of pain instantly 

 following the committal of the offence. I need hardly 



