generally acknowledged that Mr. Brodrick, who was Minister for War during most of: the time when the sales and of army stores in South Africa took place, made much better "lefenco than was of highly-placed sabordioates at the War expected. It was partly at the expense
Office whom he did net name, for he informed the House that he had been kept in ignorance of the dull system by which contractors bought stores from the army ant resold them to the army at a hue profit, though the fact war known at the War Ofice—but he auccorted also in showing thst some of the strictures passed by the Butler Commissioners were not deserved. The Prime Minister's s, eech was less effective. strongest point was that the loss sustained by the sale of war stores amounted only to about half-a-million instead of the six or eight millions alleged. He confessed, however—indead it was obvious—ibat he bad to rely on others for his figures; and Mr Gibeon Bowles has cite! other Ggures, both during the debate, and "afterwards in a letter to the newspapers, which neem to show that Mr. Balfour's statistics, by whomsoever supplied, are not reliable, Anyhow, even on the ad sion of Ministers themselves, the scand is bad enough, and though the Government has had no difficulty in escaping from censure by the House, it was not '80 easy to persuade the country that the Government should be held free from blame
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.