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? V. A HISTORICAL PARALLEL