THE DANGER OF DRENCHES. 229 
8/4. — Nine ounces of the diluted creostote, without the addition 
of more water, were given at one dose. 
9th and 10/4. — Twelve ounces of the unmixed water of creostote 
were given. 
11/4. — The evacuation of blood ceased, and the creostote was no 
longer administered, but the iron was continued every morning sus- 
pended in gruel. The animal gradually returned to his oats and 
bread ; and, on the 30th day after he was admitted into my stable, 
I had him harnessed, and drove him four miles and a half in a light 
chair. On the following day his owner claimed him, and exacted 
from him the same work that he had formerly done. 
I have thought that this interesting case deserves attention on 
two accounts. The first is, the kind of haematuria, which must not 
be confounded with that in which the fluid evacuated through the 
urinary passage is highly coloured with blood, and of a uniform 
character. Here the evacuated urine was little or not at all stained 
with blood, and the clots seemed to have been moulded by the 
ureter through which they had passed. 
The second object deserving of attention is the therapeutic action 
of the means which I employed — namely, the creostote to arrest the 
haemorrhage, and the peroxide of the carbonate of iron to recruit the 
strength of the animal, and to induce the formation of blood. 
Recueil de Med. Vet. 1835, p. 337. 
THE DANGER OF DRENCHES. 
By Professor STEWART, of Glasgow . 
Reply to Mr. Markham. 
In The Veterinarian for last November, Mr. Markham ac- 
cused me of making him astonished and dismayed, because I had 
said that a bottle is a better drenching instrument than a horn; and 
of grieving him, because I had said that draughts are dangerous. 
In my reply I did not insinuate that his sorrow and dismay had no 
existence ; but I endeavoured to shew that they were no argument 
against the truth of what I had asserted. In this endeavour, it 
seems, I have been successful; for Mr. M., in his last paper, aban- 
dons all defence of his first, so far as I objected to it. He labours 
to explain his motives for writing ; but on them I had made no re- 
mark. It was, and is, quite the same to me whether he have one 
motive or twenty ; whether he write from “ the lively interest he 
feelsi n the onward progress of veterinary science,” or from fear that 
my assertions might compromise some practitioners who were in 
the occasional or frequent habit of giving draughts. Let him write 
to the purpose, and his motives will not be questioned. 
VOL. XII. H h 
