other driver between them to avoid it. It was not the slippery shoes (objectionable as they undoubtedly are) that did the harm in this case; but the want of a controlling power more efficient than the man’s arms, which only control the mouth of the horse under any circumstances; and, even then, only as long as the horse chooses to submit, or is able to do so. A man cannot ‘pull a horse up’ with the reins used as a mechanical power, any more than he can get into a basket and raise himself from the ground by lifting at the handles, as the principle is the same; but resistance thrown against the collar will soon tell upon the horse’s speed, and the means of throwing it there by the application of friction to both hind wheels (just short of making them ‘skid’) would do away with a great deal of the present losses of life, and deterioration of valuable property, put down to ‘dangerous driving.’
Conservatism is proverbially strong amongst horse owners, and still more so with grooms and others that surround the horse. In the last century, Lawrence wrote:—‘There are some toils to which even the rich must submit. True knowledge is not to be acquired, or the acquisition to be enjoyed, by deputy; and, if gentlemen and large proprietors of horses are desirous to avoid the difficulties, dangers, and cruelties perpetually resulting from prejudice, ignorance, and knavery combined, they must embrace the resolution of making themselves so far master of the subject as to be able to direct those whom they employ.’
