Evolution and Ethics | Page 5

I am desirous that this
fact should be kept steadily in view; and that the moderation of the
clamour of the drums and trumpets should not lead us to forget the
existence of a force, which, in bad hands, may, at any time, be used for
bad purposes.
In 1892, a Committee was "formed for the purpose of investigating the
manner in which the moneys, subscribed in response to the appeal
made in the book entitled 'In Darkest England and the Way out,' have
been expended." The members of this body were gentlemen in whose
competency and equity every one must have complete confidence; and
in December, 1892, they published a report in which they declare that,
"with the exception of the sums expended on the 'barracks' at
Hadleigh," the moneys in question have been "devoted only to the
objects and expended in the methods set out in that appeal, and to and
in no others."
Nevertheless, their final conclusion runs as follows: "(4) That whilst
the invested property, real and personal, resulting from such Appeal is
so vested and controlled by the Trust of the Deed of January 30th, 1891,
that any application of it to purposes other than those declared in the
deed by any 'General' of the Salvation Army would amount to a breach
of trust, and would subject him to the proceedings of a civil and
criminal character, before mentioned in the Report, ADEQUATE
LEGAL SAFEGUARDS DO NOT AT PRESENT EXIST TO
PREVENT THE MISAPPLICATION OF SUCH PROPERTY."
The passage I have italicised forms part of a document dated December
19th, 1892. It follows, that, even after the Deed of January 30th, 1891,
was executed, "adequate legal safeguards" "to prevent the
misapplication of the property" did not exist. What then was the state of
things, up to a week earlier, that is on January 22nd, 1891, when my
twelfth and last letter appeared in the "Times"? A better justification for
what I have said about-the want of adequate security for the proper
administration of the funds intrusted to Mr. Booth could not be desired,
unless it be that which is to be found in the following passages of the
Report (pp. 36 and 37):--
"It is possible that a 'General' may be forgetful of his duty, and sell
property and appropriate the proceeds to his own use, or to meeting the
general liabilities of the Salvation Army. As matters now stand, he, and

he alone, would have control over such a sale. Against such
possibilities it appears to the Committee to be reasonable that some
check should be imposed."
Once more let it be remembered that this opinion given under the hand
of Sir Henry James, was expressed by the Committee, with the Trust
Deed of 1891, which has been so sedulously flaunted before the public,
in full view.
The Committee made a suggestion for the improvement of this very
unsatisfactory state of things; but the exact value set upon it by the
suggestors should be carefully considered (p.37).
"The Committee are fully aware that if the views thus expressed are
carried out, the safeguards and checks created will not be sufficient for
all purposes absolutely to prevent possible dealing with the property
and moneys inconsistent with the purposes to which they are intended
to be devoted."
In fact, they are content to express the very modest hope that "if the
suggestion made be acted upon, some hindrance will thereby be placed
in the way of any one acting dishonestly in respect of the disposal of
the property and moneys referred to."
I do not know, and, under the circumstances, I cannot say I much care,
whether the suggestions of the Committee have, or have not, been acted
upon. Whether or not, the fact remains that an unscrupulous "General"
will have a pretty free hand, notwithstanding "some" hindrance.
Thus, the judgment of the highly authoritative, and certainly not hostile,
Committee of 1892, upon the issues with which they concerned
themselves is hardly such as to inspire enthusiastic confidence. And it
is further to be borne in mind that they carefully excluded from their
duties "any examination of the principles, government, teaching, or
methods of the Salvation Army as a religious organization, or of its
affairs" except so far as they related to the administration of the moneys
collected by the "Darkest England" appeal.
Consequently, the most important questions discussed in my letters
were not in any way touched by the Committee. Even if their report had
been far more favourable to the "Darkest England" scheme than it is; if
it had really assured the contributors that the funds raised were fully
secured against malversation; the objections, on social and political
grounds, to Mr. Booth's despotic organization, with its thousands of

docile satellites pledged to blind obedience, set forth