T LEGAL OPINIONS. 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 Practising 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 in- 

 quiries: 



(1) Does the trust deed by its operation em- 

 power 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 prop- 

 erly accounted for, is any one, and, if so, who, in 

 a position to institute civil or criminal proceedings 

 against any one, and whom, in respect of such 

 refusal or neglect to account? 



(3) In the event of the proceedings, civil or 

 criminal, failing to obtain restitution of misap- 

 plied funds, is or are any other person or persons 

 liable to make good the loss? 



On December 24th, 1890, a letter of mine 

 appeared in the " Times " (No. V. above) in which 

 I put questions of the same import, and asked 

 Mr. Booth if he would not be so good as to take 

 counsel's opinion on the " trusts " of which so 



