468 
ON CRUELTY TO HORSES. 
for severity; but still we think that the gentleness and forbear¬ 
ance affected by some persons may be carried to a ridiculous ex¬ 
tent/' This is loosely enough expressed; but it manifestly implies 
the editor's approbation of the general system. 
The article has the following characteristic motto, “ Fear doth 
much, love little." It says, “ Pluvinel and most of the great 
masters in horsemanship praise gentleness, and flatteries, and 
making much of horses, either by clapping, stroking them, or 
speaking flatteringly unto them, or giving them some reward to 
eat." He is speaking of what he calls “ dressing" or breaking in 
ahorse; “but some horsemen never make much of them, for 
courtesy doth no good, but makes them presume, and fear makes 
them diligent still to obey. I seldom let a fault escape without 
punishment; and if they make none they are not punished, and 
there’s their reward . They are punished with nothing but the 
spurs, for all whips, even of wire, chambrieres, or bull's pisles, are 
toys. Fear is the sure hold, for fear doth all things in this 
world. Love little, and therefore let your horse fear you." 
After concluding this abominable article, and which ought 
never to have been brought before the public, except for the sake 
of expressing indignation at the practice which it inculcated, 
the editor of the Hippiatrist goes on to illustrate his own opinions 
and feelings by referring to a late charge of mine, preferred 
against a carman, before Sir Richard Birnie, for cruelty to his 
horses. 
The case I allude to was that of a carman, who, as I had 
stated on oath, had unmercifully lashed a broken-winded horse, 
heavily laden, about the head and other parts of the body, by 
which it was covered with sweat, much whealed, and greatly dis¬ 
tressed. The defendant produced a man, whom he styled the 
agent of the master of the horse; and this person, though he did 
not pretend to have been present, denied every fact constituting 
the charge. 
I then requested leave to call another witness to corroborate 
my statement, this being, indeed, the person who had summoned 
the defendant: but he was not allowed to speak, Sir Richard ob¬ 
serving, that if he could only prove what I had related, he could 
prove no offence, as whipping w 7 as not contemplated by the act. 
I replied that it w r as contemplated,—that I thought the word 
whip was mentioned in the act, but that, if mistaken in this, the 
offence w 7 as distinctly included, as the horse had been severely 
beaten (with the lash), and had been much ill-treated , which 
words the acts did contain ; (the report stating that I acknow r - 
ledged the reverse is false). He then said, “ I dismiss the case." I 
observed, that other magistrates considered whipping as included 
