V LEGAL OriNIONS 313 



been presumptuous on my part to express, that 

 the opinions cited by " General " Booth's soUcitors 

 Avere 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 j^rovided with clear 

 and intelligible answers to the following in- 

 quiries : — 



(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, 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 misapplied 

 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 



