v "DARKEST ENGLAND" SCHEME. 299 



u The ease 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 Eolls) considered that it was probable the de- 

 fendant, with his principles, had intended to de- 

 stroy the property as a public-house, and that it 

 was not right thus to take property under a cov- 

 enant 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-Clib- 

 born, 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 pro- 

 perty, and the General was declared to have acted 



