ON DRENCHING HORSES. 
107 
“ Knotted and combined locks to part, 
And each particular hair to stand an end 
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.” 
It was against this new bug-a-boo I was contending. 
The only argument brought forward by the Professor, is the ac- 
count of twelve horses to which drenches had been adminstered ; of 
whom eight died before the 10th, one on the 11th, two on the 14th, 
and one on the 16th day. I stated that this was no proof at all of 
the danger of drenches. The inflammation set up by them in the 
bronchi or lungs, if any portion of the mixture had entered those 
organs, would much more speedily have run its course. 
“ But then,” asks the Professor, " if the drinks did not kill the 
horses, what did 1” I reply, “ Most probably the disease which 
existed before the drinks were given, and which the drinks were 
not able to cure.” 
Then I am accused of putting some words into italics, “ as if I 
were pointing out something very important.” I thought that I 
was so. I was directing the attention of the reader to a system of 
neglect which I did not understand. The third case says that, 
“ A horse got a draught, and died — mind — without treatment, on 
the fourth day.” In the fourth case, “ Another horse got a draught, 
coughed violently, received no treatment but one bleeding, and died 
on the sixteenth day.” I did intend, by putting certain words into 
italics, to direct the attention of the reader to that which I thought 
was very important- — far too much so to please me, or the Professor 
either, if he will seriously reflect — first, that the poor animal, in 
the fourth case, was suffered to linger sixteen days, without any 
attempt to relieve it, or arrest the progress of disease, except one 
bleeding, and then the lame, and illogical, and impotent conclu- 
sion, that the horse died, not from neglect — shameful neglect, — * 
but from the effect of the drench. 
I must beg to ask the Professor, Did he attend those cases 
previously to the drinks being given ; and how came it that these 
horses were so scandalously neglected] 
These cases, however, are no proofs at all that drinks are dan- 
gerous, as thoracic diseases do very often appear after others have 
been subdued, and without any drinks having been given. 
Professor Stewart says that he presumes I am not a veterinary 
surgeon. I candidly admit that I am not. Yet I will yield to few, 
as I shall presently state, in the favourable opportunities I have 
had of acquiring some knowledge about horses — I will yield to no 
one as a sincere admirer of, and a well-wisher to the profession; 
and I hope yet to live to contribute my humble mite towards its 
onward progress. 
