No Obligation and No Power
State led opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The name ‘Robert Gascoyne-Cecil’ (1830-1903) more commonly known as Lord Salisbury likely means very little to most people today. He is a long-dead British politician who functioned during the reigns of Queen Victoria and King Edward in a variety of roles, including as a Conservative Prime Minister at three different times.
In August 1879 Lord Salisbury was the Secretary of State when the British government was approached by the United States government with a request to try and limit the Church’s functions in Great Briatin. Letters were also sent to other countries with considerable numbers of Latter-day Saint emigrants. In essence, the US government wanted foreign governments to restrict Latter-day Saint activities and to stop emigration to Utah.
Some scholars have described Lord Salisbury as an introvert who was fearful of change. In most cases that crossed his desk as Secretary of State Lord Salisbury adopted a non-interventionist approach. He had little interest in involving the government in people’s personal matters. In a later case involving unscrupulous emigration agents encouraging people to emigrate to Argentina he remarked that “If you warn them against dishonest emigrations, why not against dishonest promotion of companies - or dishonest vendors of medicine?” And in a private letter he revealed to a peer his views on the role of the government: “On general grounds I object to Parliament trying to regulate private morality in matters which only affects the person who commits the offence.”1 Lord Salisbury was no fan of Latter-day Saints, but he also felt the government had no right to interfere in the lives of the people whether for better or worse. In his mind the Saints were probably foolish and unwise, but he did not feel as if the government was right to intervene and they only had themselves to blame if it did not go to plan.
The full letter to Lord Salisbury requesting his help largely fixated on the practice of plural marriage or polygamy as it was often called. Foreign Latter-day Saint immigrants were seen as a potential threat to the integrity of the United States as they would undoubtedly “swell the numbers of the law-defying Mormons of Utah…”
Letter from W. J. Hoppin to Lord Salisbury, 25 August 1879
My Lord: The annual statistics of immigration into the United States show that large number of emigrants come to that country every year, from the various nations of Europe, for the avowed purpose of joining the Mormon community at Salt Lake, in the Territory of Utah, under the auspices and guidance of the emissaries and agents of that community in foreign parts. This representation of the interests of Mormonism abroad, which has been carried on for years, is understood to have developed unusual activity of late, especially in Great Britain among other countries where it has unfortunately obtained a greater or less foothold.
The system of polygamy, which is prevalent in the community of Utah, is largely based upon and promoted by these accessions from Europe, drawn mainly from the ignorant classes, who are easily influenced by the double appeal to their passions and their poverty held out in the flattering picture of a home in the fertile and prosperous region where Mormonism has established its material seat.
Inasmuch as the practice of polygamy is based upon a form of marriage, by which additional wives are “sealed” to the men of that community, these so-called “marriages” are pronounced by the laws of the United States to be crimes against the statutes of the country, and punishable as such.
On the 1st of July, 1862, the Congress of the United States passed an act, chapter cxxvi, expressly designed, as appears from the title, “to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States, and other places,” &c., That act remains the law of the land as to its continuing provisions, which, in the revision of the statutes of the United States, made in 1874, reads as follows:
“Sec. 5352. Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; but this section shall not extend to any person, by reason of any former marriage, whose husband or wife by such marriage is absent for five successive years, and is not known to such to be living; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which has been dissolved by decree of a competent court; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which has been pronounced void by decree of a competent court on the ground of nullity of the marriage contract.”
Whatever doubt, if any, has heretofore existed as to the efficiency of the law above cited, and the intent of the general government to enforce it, has now been terminated by the recent decision of the Supreme Court, the highest judicial tribunal of the land, sustaining the constitutionality of this legislation, and affirming the conviction and punishment of offenders against that law.
Under whatever specious guise the subject may be presented by those engaged in instigating the European movement to swell the numbers of the law-defying Mormons of Utah, the bands and organizations which are got together in foreign lands as recruits cannot be regarded as otherwise than a deliberate and systematic attempt to bring persons to the United States with the intent of violating their laws and committing crimes expressly punishable under the statute as penitentiary offenses.
No friendly power will, of course, knowingly lend its aid, even indirectly, to attempts made within its borders against the laws and government of a country wherewith it is at peace, with established terms of amity and reciprocal relations of treaty between them; while, even were there no question involved of open penal infraction of the laws of the land, every consideration of comity should prevail to prevent the territory of a friendly State from becoming a resort or refuge for the crowds of misguided men and women whose offences against morality and decency would be intolerable in the land from whence they came.
Mr. Evarts, in his instruction to Mr. Welsh upon this subject (which has arrived since Mr. Welsh’s departure), after mentioning the above-recited facts and conclusions, further states that it is not doubted, when the subject is brought to its attention, that the Government of Great Britain will take such steps as may be compatible with its laws and usages to check the organization of these criminal enterprises by agents who are thus operating beyond the reach of the law of the United States, and to prevent the departure of those proposing to go thither as violators of the law by engaging in such criminal enterprises, by whomsoever instigated.
Mr. Welsh was, therefore, instructed, and I have the honor, as the chargé d’affairs of the United States ad interim, to present the matter to the Government of Great Britain through your lordship, and to urge earnest attention to it, in the interest, not merely of a faithful execution of the laws of the United States, but of the peace, good order, and morality which are cultivated and sought to be promoted by all civilized countries.
I may, probably, have the honor, in some future communications, to fortify my representations on this subject, by citing such facts and details as may come to my notice concerning emigration of this character from Great Britain, and I beg to bespeak for them your lordship’s careful attention.
I have, &c.,
W. J. HOPPIN.
Some time later, after taking legal advice, Lord Salisbury responded that the British government had no legal recourse to stop Latter-day Saint emigrants from leaving the country. The British government was not willing to use American laws and experiences as a means of limiting British subjects from making their own decisions. Still, they agreed to publish notices warning people about emigrating to the United States and how participating in plural marriage in Utah was a crime. Here is the reply in full:
Sir: I referred to Her Majesty’s secretary of state for the home department your letter of the 25th of August, conveying to me the wish of your government that steps should be taken by Her Majesty’s Government to prevent the adoption of the doctrines of Mormonism by persons in this country, and the emigration to the United States of persons emigrating for the purpose of joining the Mormon community at Salt Lake, in the Territory of Utah; and I have the honor to acquaint you that a reply has been received, stating that Her Majesty’s Government have no authority to place any restraint on emigration or to interfere with regard to the opinions which may be held by British subjects on questions of religion or morality so long as no act is committed which is a breach of the law of England, and that they are therefore powerless to carry out the measures suggested by you.
I have to add, however, that Mr. Cross will cause a notice to be inserted in the newspapers, cautioning persons against being deceived by Mormonite emissaries, and making generally known the law of the United States affecting polygamy, as set forth in your letter, and the penalties attaching to infringement thereof.
I have, &c.,
SALISBURY.
Lord Salisbury was true to his word and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police issued a notice to “emigrants and emigration agents” warning them that “a system of solicitation extensively prevails to induce persons to emigrate from Great Britain to the United States for the purpose of joining the Mormon community at Salt Lake…” The notice, such as the one below, was soon after published in various newspapers.
In January 1880 Lord Salisbury appears to have drawn a line under the whole matter and communications on the matter ended.
The Americans recognised the British position but still wanted to restrict Latter-day Saint emigraiton. In an internal letter within the Department of State it was noted that the British “…can do no more than give notice to the public of the illegal character of Mormon marriages according to the law of the United States, and that such notice has accordingly been given.”2 No further pressure appears to have been exerted on the British government to stop Latter-day Saints and instead they relied on the notices provided in the newspapers to discourage would be emigrants. As a group prepared to leave Liverpool in April 1880 the American authorities, knowing the government could not intervene, contacted the local British police to encourage them to “repeat the warning”. If it happened there appears to have been no effect and the group left as planned.3
The British government had no obligation and no power to restrict or limit Latter-day Saints or those interested in the faith from participating in the denomination or not. They also could not stop them from leaving the country. Various American officials sought different ways of limiting foreign-born Latter-day Saints from immigrating to the United States, but despite their efforts they were unable to halt “The Gathering”. Lord Salisbury likely paid very little attention to the Latter-day Saints, but his commitment to upholding British law, which was generally tolerant of divergent beliefs and practices, worked out well for the interests of the Saints.
Andrew Roberts, Salisbury: Victorian Titan (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999), p. 280.
Letter from Mr Evarts to Mr Hoppin, 11 February 1880, No 303. PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS, WITH THE ANNUAL MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT, DECEMBER 6, 1880, Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute, United States Department of State.
Letter from Mr Hoppin to Mr Packard, 18 March 1880, No. 305. PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS, WITH THE ANNUAL MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT, DECEMBER 6, 1880, Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute, United States Department of State.