appeal； has assured me that the argument was purely technical； that
the facts were very slightly gone into； and that； so far as he knows；
no dissenting comment was made on the strictures of the Judge before
whom the case first came。 Moreover； in the judgment of the Master of
the Rolls； fully recorded in the 〃Times〃 of February 14th； 1884； the
following passages occur：
＇299＇ 〃The case had been heard by a learned Judge； who had exercised
his discretion upon it； and the Court would not interfere with his
discretion unless they could see that he was wrong。 The learned Judge
had taken a strong view of the conduct of the defendant； but
nevertheless had said that he would have given relief if he could have
seen how far protection and compensation could be given。 And if this
Court differed from him in that view； and could give relief without
forfeiture； they would be acting on his own principle in doing so。
Certain suggestions had been made with that view； and the Court had to
consider the case under all the circumstances。。。。 He himself （the
Master of the Rolls） considered that it was probable the defendant；
with his principles； had intended to destroy the property as a
public…house； and that it was not right thus to take property under a
covenant to keep it up as a public…house； intending to destroy it as
such。 He did not； however； think this was enough to deprive him of
all relief。 The defendant could only expect severe terms。〃
Yet； Sir； Mr。 〃Commissioner〃 Booth…Clibborn； this high official of the
Salvation Army； has the audacity to tell the public that if I had made
inquiries I should have found that 〃in the Court of Appeal the Judge
reversed the decision of his predecessor as regards seven eighths of
the property； and the General was declared to have acted ＇300＇ all
along with straight forwardness and good faith。〃
But the nature of Mr。 〃Commissioner〃 Booth…Clibborn's conceptions of
straightforwardness and good faith is so marvellously illustrated by
the portions of his letter with which I have dealt that I doubt not
his statements are quite up to the level of the 〃Army〃 Regulations and
Instructions in regard to those cardinal virtues。 As I pointed out must
be the case； the slave is subdued to that he works in。
For myself； I must confess that the process of wading through Mr。
〃Commissioner's〃 verbose and clumsy pleadings has given me a 〃hot
fit；〃 which； I undertake to say； will be followed by not so much as a
passing shiver of repentance。 And it is under the influence of the
genial warmth diffused through the frame； on one of those rare
occasions when one may be 〃angry and sin not；〃 that I infringe my
resolution to trouble you with no more letters。 On reflection； I am
convinced that it is undesirable that the public should be misled； for
even a few days； by misrepresentations so serious。
I am copiously abused for speaking of the Jesuitical methods of the
superior officials of the Salvation Army。 But the following facts have
not been； and； I believe； cannot be； denied：
1。 Mr。 Booth's conduct in the 〃Eagle〃 case has been censured by two
of the Judges。
＇301＇ 2。 Mr。 Bramwell Booth admitted before Mr。 Justice Lopes that he
had made an untrue statement because of a promise he had made to Mr。
Stead。*
* This statement has been disputed； but not yet publicly。 （See p。 305。）
And I have just proved that Mr。 〃Commissioner〃 Booth…Clibborn asserts
the exact contrary of that which your report of the judgment of the
Master of the Rolls tells us that distinguished judge said。
Under these circumstances； I think that my politeness in applying no
harder adjective than 〃Jesuitical〃 to these proceedings is not
properly appreciated。
I am； Sir； your obedient servant；
T。 H。 Huxley。
XII。
The 〃Times；〃 January 22nd； 1891
SIR；I think that your readers will be interested in the accompanying
opinion； written in consultation with an eminent Chancery Queen's
Counsel； with which I have been favoured。 It will be observed that
this important legal deliverance ＇302＇ justifies much stronger
language than any which I have applied to the only security （？） for
the proper administration of the funds in Mr。 Booth's hands which
appears to be in existence。
I am； Sir； your obedient servant；
T。 H。 Huxley。
1； Dr。 Johnson's Buildings； Temple； E。C。；
January 14； 1891。
MR。 BOOTH'S DECLARATION OF TRUST DEED； 1878。
〃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 wentfor the Eagle
dispute is no concern of minehe 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
w