the principle enunciated by Baucher: "The position gives the movement." The fact is, a horse, well conformed, healthy, and well mounted, when under transmitted equilibrium, finds it much more difficult, physically and morally, to alter that state and refuse the movement asked, than to obey. The proof is that the same movement, asked of an inferior animal, will result in revolt.
It is evident, then, that the horse is compelled, by the condition of transmitted equilibrium, to seek instinctively that state of balance which involves a less physical effort in executing any change of gait or direction, than when it is not in balance. After this position of balance is given by the rider, the horse will not refuse to execute a movement which does not compromise the condition. This is the reason why the competent esquire, who knows how to place his horse preliminary to the movement, never has a restive or disobedient animal. What is more, if a well-educated horse, accustomed to the position of equilibrium, is by circumstances put out of that state, it is simply lost and does not know what to do with itself. But, of course, riding of this sort is no offhand matter. It requires study and knowledge, time and self-control.
But, unfortunately, there is always the rider who, for example, asks of his mount the turn to one side at the trot, but neglects first to place the horse in the position which makes the movement possible. The animal necessarily refuses. To whom belongs
