IV. "Our Cause in Parliament"
Under this heading the official journal of the National Society reports questions asked in Parliament, and the answers given to them. This aspect of the work of the anti-vivisection societies, and the part taken by them in elections, and their plans to amend or abolish the Act, must be noted here.
In one year, the National Society spent £888, 13s. 2d. on "purely electoral work." That is a very large sum, when we think of the grave injury done to the cause of mercy by the deplorable waste of money spent in perfectly unnecessary offices and salaries. The Society's journal tells us something of this electoral work:—
1899.—"The Parliamentary League has again been successful in its work at bye-elections. At—— the two candidates were approached, and both gave more or less satisfactory answers. Sir—— 's reply was thought to be the more satisfactory one, and consequently our supporters gave him their votes. As our readers are aware, he was returned." (In a later number, the Zoophilist hints that "further pressure" may be applied to this gentleman in Parliament.)
1900.—"The efforts of the Society will not be confined to forwarding the interests of any one candidate or any one party. As soon as the names of candidates were announced, Mr. Coleridge issued to all of them a circular letter demanding their views on the vivisection question. The numerous replies which have already arrived, and are still arriving, afford results more gratifying than we for a moment anticipated, and show clearly that we are now recognised throughout Great Britain to be a power that cannot be ignored.... Volunteer workers are also being despatched from headquarters to various places. Readers who have votes or who will help in any way are invited to communicate immediately to the head office, when information about the views of their candidates will be at once sent to them."
The London Society also, like the National Society, desires to have a representative in Parliament; and this desire is stated in emphatic words in one of its reports. The general tone of that report has already been noted. It loves big black headlines, No Surrender, The Awakening Churches, A Truculent Science, The Sinews of War, The Appeal to the People. They had better ensure the return of that opponent of vaccination who says that you can bring any member of Parliament to your knees.
And, of course, these societies follow the successful candidates on their subsequent careers. "In Parliament," says the London Society, "the Society's work is carried on as occasion permits. Members of Parliament are written to or are personally seen at the House of Commons. Questions are drafted for them to submit to the Home Secretary, and one or more officers of the Society are in constant attendance at the House of Commons when the question of vivisection is likely to be raised." And the National Society says, "In order to stimulate attention (to Mr. Coleridge's Bill) our lecturer has been assiduous in his attendance in the lobby of the House during the present session, and by personal interviews has been able to arouse a good deal of interest in it on both sides of the House." It is evident that "Our Cause in Parliament" is urged with diligence, and is not left to stand or fall according to the unsolicited conscience of what the London Society calls the average lay member. Take, for example, the system of drafting questions to be put to the Home Secretary. It may or may not take off the edge of sincerity; anyhow, the question should be drafted with great care. On February 26th, 1900, a question was asked as to certain observations which were alleged to have been made on living animals, but in fact had been made on their organs removed after death. The National Society said of this mistake:—
"We wish our readers to know that the question was not prompted by any communication from our Society, and we think it unfortunate that members of Parliament should be asked to put questions in the House by persons who do not realise that questions based on inaccurate premises can do nothing but harm to our cause. It is hard that the whole anti-vivisection movement should suffer through the carelessness and indolence of those who will neither be at the pains to avoid inaccuracy by their own study and investigation, nor by consulting the National Society's officers."
These careless, indolent, inaccurate persons, who think so lightly of the National Society's officers, and draft a question so silly that the whole cause is damaged, bring us back to the point whence we started: the want of unity between the societies, the frequent jarring of one with another. We have still to see something of the dealings of the National Society with Government. It is at its best, doubtless, in the formal letters from Mr. Coleridge to the Home Office; but these, after all, are his own work, and the Society cannot take the credit of them. Per contra, we may credit to the Society, and not to Mr. Coleridge, certain threats to Ministers in 1898:—
... "Should we be so unfortunate as to be left by you without such an open assurance, we shall feel it our duty to employ the strength and resources of this Society in an endeavour to prevent your return to Parliament at the next election. We know of a large and increasing number of your constituents who are ready, in the unfortunate event of your being unable to reassure them as to your attitude in the matter of endowing torture, to place humanity above party politics."
... "This Society will feel it to be its duty to use every means in its power to prevent your return to Parliament at the next election."
... "We beg leave to inform you that at the next election the forces of this Society will be used with the utmost vigour to prevent your return to Parliament. We know of many, and shall no doubt soon secure more of your constituents, pledged to place humanity above party and vote against you on the next occasion that you present yourself."
What are we to think of these three letters? The resources of the Society, given with some vague hope of keeping animals out of pain, are to be used for keeping Ministers out of Parliament. Note the bullying tone of the letters. It is the same thing, two years later, at the General Election, with the heckling of candidates: We are now recognised throughout Great Britain to be a power that cannot be ignored. A Society that bullies Ministers of State, what will it not do to the average lay member?