The rhetorical culture of the British House of Commons, 1918-1940

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

The interwar years were a time of political and economic turbulence, but in Britain they were also marked by considerable institutional stability. Extremism, in the form of communism and fascism, failed to gain much of a foothold, and electoral and parliamentary politics continued in a recognisable form. This is not to say that nothing changed. Indeed, these were the first years of full democracy in the country: the franchise was extended to all men and some women in 1918, women finally receiving the vote on equal terms in 1928. Meanwhile, Labour replaced the Liberals as the main party of Opposition, and formed a government for the first time in 1924; whereas the Conservatives recovered from their pre-war doldrums to dominate politics until the collapse of Neville Chamberlain's government in 1940. This research explores how the theme of stability amidst change played out in a crucial arena of British politics - the House of Commons. It examines how the rhetorical culture of the Commons - that is to say, the formal and informal conventions surrounding habits of parliamentary speech - evolved over time and how it related to British political culture more generally.Historians have generally assumed - rightly - that all three main parties were committed to parliamentary methods. What they have overlooked is that the types of behaviour that constituted 'parliamentary methods' were open to widely varying interpretations and were highly contested as part of partisan politics. Thus the Conservatives - who had themselves often engaged in disruptive tactics when in Opposition - portrayed the 'rowdyism' of radical socialist MPs as proof that Labour was unfit to govern. Those MPs, however, saw their actions as a proper means of drawing attention to the plight of the unemployed. Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald, by contrast, sought to steer his followers towards less controversial methods, precisely in order to counter Conservative charges of unconstitutionalism. Liberals, meanwhile, presented themselves as the only ones who were genuinely committed to parliament: the other parties, they argued, wished to ride roughshod over parliament's prerogatives in order to establish elective dictatorship by the vested interests they represented.Therefore, apparently mundane issues of parliamentary deportment and language intersected with, and were representative of, much wider political debates. As such, the question of rhetorical culture is related to other important issues that have preoccupied historians, such as how politicians sought to manipulate 'national values' to their own advantage, and how political debate was represented in the media. This, of course, was a time at which parliamentary proceedings were not broadcast and at which the BBC, in its early years, sought to avoid 'controversy' in its reporting of politics. There was however extensive coverage of the Commons in the newspapers, both in terms of verbatim reporting of speeches and in shorter reports by sketch-writers. It is thus possible to gain a sense of the Commons atmosphere and, equally importantly, to discover how celebrated episodes (such as the seizure of the mace by a Labour MP in 1930) were debated outside parliament. There is also a vast range of other sources - many of which I have already examined - that can be used to cast light on the conventions that governed parliamentary speech. These include diaries, memoirs and cartoons, as well contemporary works describing the routines and customs of the Commons. Few of these sources were neutral: their descriptions of what occurred were ideologically loaded, and sought to advance some kind of agenda. Treated carefully, though, they can yield important insights into what political actors felt was at stake in arguments about the correct forms of behaviour. It is hoped that this research will make an important contribution to revising our understanding of this crucial period.