CAMELS VS. HORSES. 149 about a hundred yards, through thick bushes, and knocked him clean over as if he had been a rabbit; however, he got up again almost immediately, and, before it was possible to obtain a second shot, had disappeared into the grass. They saw his marks, and some drops of blood, and followed him a short way, but were soon obliged to give it up, as they lost his footprints.

If either of them had been on foot, and ready for a shot, they could have had one at about twenty yards.

Camels are most tiresome animals to shoot from. They will rarely allow you to mount or dismount without setting up a deafening roar, enough to scare away all the game in Africa, and are so tall, that, although they afford the rider a capital view of the country, they are most conspicuous objects, and apt to frighten off any game there may be about. Still, whenever there is not much sport in prospect, I much prefer a camel to a horse as a mode of conveyance in Africa. The motion of a good camel is not tiring when once you get accustomed to it, which you very soon do ; and it will travel at the rate of about five miles an hour, for hours together. I am, of course, alluding only to the good ones. The mahloofa, or native saddle, is most comfortable ; and you have the great advantage of being able to carry about with you plenty of odds and ends in the shape of water-skins, guns, and bags. We only took camels with us on our shooting expeditions for the purpose of carrying water and luncheon, as well as to bring back any meat we might have obtained ; on these occasions, we invariably insisted on their keeping a long way in our rear. We were fortunate in having obtained good riding-camels ; and they were better looked after than the baggage ones, as, in the first place, each of us paid a good deal of attention to his own individual camel, and we chose the best of the drivers to attend to them.

Arthur and I overtook Lort Phillips and Colvin soon after