hospital were being held in readiness for the sick and wounded
(presumably accompanying the Column), and a vague fear was entertained
that all the nooks and crannies might be needed. Who could tell?

More news in the afternoon--the wrong sort again. A faded (pink) copy of
the _Cape Argus_ was mysteriously smuggled through. Not a line of it
alluded to Magersfontein. A screw was loose somewhere; our distrust of
the Military increased. Could it be, was it conceivable that Methuen had
been worsted at Magersfontein? That indeed was a reasonable conclusion
to draw from the reticence of our Rulers. But it was not _strictly_
logical, and besides--we liked it not. We preferred to attribute the
silence to a way they have in the army; to the Colonel, who did not take
tea with our Editor (it was said)--for Special reasons. We sympathised
with the boycott; but the conduct of the "sojers" tended to cause a
reaction in the Editor's favour. Our paper would tell the truth and
shame the devil if the Censor, who was also a "sojer," did not
unblushingly forbid it. We were oddly ingenious at times when the
monotony clamoured for variation.

But to return to the _Argus_. It was affecting in its puffery of the
beefsteak pudding that ninepence purchased in Cape Town; and poignantly
prolix in its conception of how Horatius held the bridge of Modder River
some five-and-twenty years ago (_sic_). The Boers, we gathered, had been
knocked about at Ladysmith, and Mr. Morley had sympathised with them in
London. All this would have been entertaining, even exciting, _before_
Magersfontein; but after? it annoyed us.

On Saturday a sort of "boiling oil" turn was given by the rumour-monger.
We heard wild stories concerning the annihilation of the British army.
The air was red with blood. No importance was attached to these ghastly