"I am of opinion, subject to the question whether there may be any
provision in the Charitable Trusts Acts which can be made available
for enforcing some scheme for the appropriation of the property, and
with regard to the real and leasehold properties whether the
conveyances and leases are not altogether void, as frauds on the
Mortmain Acts, that nothing can be done to control or to interfere
with Booth in the disposition or application of the properties or
moneys purported to be affected by the deed.
"As to the properties vested in Booth himself, it appears to me that
such are placed absolutely under his power and control both as to the
disposal and application thereof, and that there are no trusts for any
specific purposes declared which [303] could be enforced, and that
there are no defined persons nor classes of persons who can claim to
be entitled to the benefits of them, or at whose instance they could
be enforced by any legal process.
"As to the properties (if any) vested in trustees appointed by Booth,
it appears to me that the only person who has a locus standi to
enforce these trusts is Booth himself, and that he would have absolute
power over the trusts and the property, and might deal with the
property as he pleased, and that, as in the former case, nothing could
be done in the way of enforcing any trusts against him.
"As to the moneys contributed or raised by mortgage for the general
purposes of the mission, it appears to me that Booth may expend them
as he pleases, without being subject to any legal control, and that he
cannot even be compelled to publish any balance-sheets.
"Whether there are any provisions in the Charitable Trusts Acts which
could be made available for enforcing some scheme for the application
of the property or funds is a question to which I should require to
give a closer consideration should it become necessary to go into it;
but at present, after perusing these Acts, and especially 16 and 17
Vict. c. 137 and 18 and 19 Vict. c. 124, I cannot see how they could
be made applicable to the trusts as declared in this deed.
[304] "As to the Mortmain Acts, the matter is clearly charitable, and
unless in the conveyances and leases to Booth, or to the trustees (if
any) named by him, all the provisions of the Acts have been complied
with, and the deeds have been enrolled under the Acts, they would be
void. It is probable, however, that every conveyance and lease has
been taken without disclosing any charitable trust, for the purpose of
preventing it from being void on the face of it. It is to be noted
that the deed is a mere deed poll by Booth himself, without any other
party to it, who, as a contracting party, would have a right to
enforce it.
"Whether there are any objects of the trust I cannot say. If there is,
as the recital indicates, a society of enrolled members called 'The
Christian Mission,' those members would be objects of the trust, but
then, it appears to me, Booth has entire control and determination of
the application. And, as to the trusts enuring for the benefit of the
'Salvation Army,' I am not aware what is the constitution of the
'Salvation Army,' but there is no reference whatever to any such body
in the deed. I have understood the army as being merely the
missionaries, and not the society of worshippers.
"If there is no Christian Mission Society of enrolled members, then
there are no objects of the trust. The trusts are purely religious,
and trading is entirely beyond its purposes. Booth can [305] 'give
away' the property, simply because there is no one who has any right
to prevent his doing so.
"Ernest Hatton."
It is probably my want of legal knowledge which prevents me from
appreciating the value of the professed corrections of Mr. Hatton's
opinion contained in the letters of Messrs. Ranger, Burton, and
Matthews, "Times," January 28th and 29th, 1891.
The note on page 301 refers to a correspondence, incomplete at the
time fixed for the publication of my pamphlet, the nature of which is
sufficiently indicated by the subjoined extracts from Mr. Stead's
letter in the "Times" of January 20th, and from my reply in the
"Times" of January 24th. Referring to the paragraphs numbered 1, 2, at
the end of my letter XI., Mr. Stead says:--
"On reading this, I at once wrote to Professor Huxley, stating that, as
he had mentioned my name, I was justified in intervening to explain
that, so far as the second count in his indictment went--for the Eagle
dispute is no concern of mine--he had been misled by an error in the
reports of the case which appeared in the daily papers [306] of
November 4, 1885. I have his reply to-day, saying that I had better
write to you direct. May I ask you, then, seeing that my name has been
brought into the affair, to state that, as I was in the dock when Mr.
Bramwell Booth was in the witness-box, I am in a position to give the
most unqualified denial to the statement as to the alleged admission
on his part of falsehood? Nothing was heard in Court of any such
admission. Neither the prosecuting counsel nor the Judge who tried the
case ever referred to it, although it would obviously have had a
direct bearing on the credit of the witness; and the jury, by
acquitting Mr. Bramwell Booth, showed that they believed him to be a
witness of truth. But fortunately the facts can be verified beyond all
gainsaying by a reference to the official shorthand-writer's report of
the evidence. During the hearing of the case for the prosecution,
Inspector Borner was interrupted by the Judge, who said:--
"'I want to ask you a question. During the whole of that conversation,
did Booth in any way suggest that that child had been sold?' Borner
replied:--
"'Not at that interview, my Lord.'
"It was to this that Mr. Bramwell Booth referred when, after
examination, cross-examination, [307] and re-examination, during which
no suggestion had been made that he had ever made the untrue statement
now alleged against him, he asked and received leave from the Judge to
make the following explanation, which I quote from the official
report:--
"'Will you allow me to explain a matter mentioned yesterday in
reference to a question asked by your Lordship some days ago with
respect to one matter connected with my conduct? Your Lordship asked,
I think it was Inspector Borner, whether I had said to him at either
of our interviews that the child was sold by her parents, and he
replied "No." That is quite correct; I did not say so to him, and what
I wish to say now is that I had been specially requested by Mr. Stead,
and had given him a promise, that I would not under any circumstances
divulge the fact of that sale to any person which would ma ke it at
all probable that any trouble would be brought upon the persons who
had taken part in this investigation.' (Central Criminal Court Reports,
Vol. CII., part 612, pp. 1,035-6.)
"In the daily papers of the following day this statement was
misreported as follows:--
"'I wish to explain, in regard to your Lordship's condemnation of my
having said "No" to [308] Inspector Borner when he asked me whether
the child had been sold by her parents--the reason why I stated what
was not correct was that I had promised Mr. Stead not to divulge the
fact of the sale to any person which would make it probable that any
trouble should be brought on persons taking part in this proceeding.'
"Hence the mistake into which Professor Huxley has unwittingly fallen.
"I may add that, so far from the statement never having been challenged
for five years, it was denounced as 'a remarkably striking lie' in the
'War Cry' of November 14th, and again the same official organ of the
Salvation Army of November 18th specifically adduced this misreport as
an instance of 'the most disgraceful way' in which the reports of the
trial were garbled by some of the papers. What, then, becomes of one
of the two main pillars of Professor Huxley's argument?"
In my reply, I point out that, on the 10th of January, Mr. Stead
addressed to me a letter, which commences thus: "I see in the 'Times'
of this morning that you are about to republish your letters on
Booth's book."