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 parentsthe 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。〃
I replied to this letter on the 12th of January：
＇309＇ 〃Dear Mr。 Stead；I charge Mr。 Bramwell Booth with nothing。 I
simply quote the 'Times' report； the accuracy of which； so far as I
know； has never been challenged by Mr。 Booth。 I say I quote the
'Times' and not Mr。 Hodges；* because I took some pains about the
verification of Mr。 Hodges's citation。
* This is a slip of the pen。 Mr。 Hodges had nothing to do
with the citation of which I made use。
〃I should have thought it rather appertained to Mr。 Bramwell Booth to
contradict a statement which refers； not to what you heard； but to what
he said。 However； I am the last person to wish to give circulation to
a story which may not be quite correct； and I will take care； if you
have no objection （your letter is marked 'private'）； to make public as
much of your letter as relates to the point to which you have called
my attention。
〃I am； yours very faithfully；
T。 H。 Huxley。〃
To this Mr。 Stead answered； under date of January 13th； 1891：
〃Dear Professor Huxley；I thank you for your letter of the 12th inst。
I am quite sure you would not wish to do any injustice in this matter。
But； instead of publishing any extract from my letter； might I ask you
to read the passage as it ＇310＇ appears in the verbatim report of the
trial which was printed day by day； and used by counsel on both sides；
and by the Judge during the case？ I had hoped to have got you a copy
to…day； but find that I was too late。 I shall have it first thing
to…morrow morning。 You will find that it is quite clear； and
conclusively disposes of the alleged admission of untruthfulness。
Again thanking you for your courtesy；
〃I am； yours faithfully；
W。 T。 Stead。〃
Thus it appears that the letter which Mr。 Stead wrote to me on the 13th
of January does not contain one word of that which he ways it
contains； in the statement which appears in the 〃Times〃 to…day。
Moreover； the letter of mine to which Mr。 Stead refers in his first
communication to me is not the letter which appeared on the 13th； as
he states； but that which you published on December 27th； 1890。
Therefore； it is not true that Mr。 Stead wrote 〃at once。〃 On the
contrary； he allowed nearly a fortnight to elapse before he addressed
me on the 10th of January 1891。 Furthermore； Mr。 Stead suppresses the
fact that； since the 13th of January； he has had in his possession my
offer to publish his version of the story； and he leads the reader to
suppose that my only answer was that he 〃had better write to ＇311＇ you
direct。 All the while； Mr。 Stead knows perfectly well that I was
withheld from making public use of his letter of the 10th by nothing
but my scruples about using a document which was marked 〃private〃； and
that he did not give me leave to quote his letter of the 10th of
January until after he had written that which appeared yesterday。
And I add：
As to the subject…matter of Mr。 Stead's letter； the point which he
wishes to prove appears to be thisthat Mr。 Bramwell Booth did not
make a false statement； but that he withheld from the officers of
justice； pursuing a most serious criminal inquiry； a fact of grave
importance； which lay within his own knowledge。 And this because he
had promised Mr。 Stead to keep the fact secret。 In short； Mr。 Bramwell
Booth did not say what was wrong； but he did what was wrong。
I will take care to give every weight to the correction。 Most people；
I think； will consider that one of the 〃main pillars of my argument；〃
as Mr。 Stead is pleased to call them； has become very much
strengthened。
＇312＇
LEGAL OPINIONS RESPECTING
〃GENERAL〃 BOOTH'S ACTS。
In referring to the course of action adopted by 〃General〃 Booth and
Mr。 Bramwell Booth in respect of their legal obligations to other
persons； or to the criminal and civil law； I have been as careful as I
was bound to be； to put any difficulties suggested by mere lay
commonsense in an interrogative or merely doubtful form； and to
confine myself； for any positive expressions； to citations from
published declarations of the judges before whom the acts of 〃General〃
Booth came； from reports of the Law Courts； and from the deliberate
opinions of legal experts。 I have now some further remarks to make on
these topics。
I。 The observations at p。 305 express； with due reserve； the
impression which the counsel's opinions； quoted by 〃General〃 Booth's
solicitors； made on my mind。 They were written and sent to the printer
before I saw the letter from a 〃Barrister NOT Practising on the Common
Law Side；〃 and those from Messrs。 Clarke and Calkin and Mr。 George
Kebbell； which appeared in the 〃Times〃 of February 3rd and 4th。
These letters fully bear out the conclusion which I had formed； but
which it would have ＇313＇ been presumptuous on my part to express；
that the opinions cited by 〃General〃 Booth's solicitors were like the
famous broken tea…cups 〃wisely ranged for show〃； and that； as Messrs。
Clarke and Calkin say； they 〃do not at all meet the main points on
which Mr。 Hatton advised。〃 I do not think that any one who reads
attentively the able letter of 〃A Barrister NOT Practicing on the
Common Law Side〃 will arrive at any other conclusion； or who will not
share the very natural desire of Mr。 Kebbell to be provided with clear
and intelligible answers to the following inquiries：
（1） Does the trust deed by its operation empower any one legally to
call upon Mr。 Booth to account for the application of the funds？
（2） In the event of the funds not being properly accounted for； is
any one； and； i