The 'Service Members' in Parliament, the Armed Forces, and British Politics during the Great War

第一次世界大战期间议会、武装部队和英国政坛的“军人”

• 批准号: AH/J000906/1
• 负责人: Matthew Johnson
• 金额: $ 7.39万
• 依托单位: University of Oxford
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Fellowship
• 财政年份: 2012
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2012 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FJ000906%2F1
• 关键词: Service; Members; Parliament; Armed; Forces

Modern Britain has generally been regarded as a civilian and constitutional state par excellence, a polity in which military power was firmly subordinated to the civilian authority of Parliament. Yet the political and military elites in Britain, even in what many contemporaries regarded as a 'democratic' age, never constituted two wholly separate and distinct castes. My research explores this problem through a study of 264 Members of Parliament who served in the armed forces during the Great War. Transcending the narrow, institutional focus of previous work on British civil-military relations, this project comprises a study of professional and political cultures that also addresses important questions about the nature of the British state and the place of the armed forces within society.The 'Service Members' occupied a unique and controversial position in the armed forces, in Parliament, and in wider British political life. Ennobled soldiers had long sat in the House of Lords, but the question of whether an individual could simultaneously be an officer (and thus a servant of the crown) and an MP (and therefore a servant of the people) was far more problematic. Existing constitutional precedent appeared largely irrelevant to the unprecedented conditions of the Great War.Wartime coalition government placed the normal rules of politics under unusual strain. In these circumstances, military service could provide a common identity, and even a basis for common action, for MPs from rival parties. By 1915 an influential lobby of military MPs, both Unionist and Liberal, was campaigning energetically for the introduction of military conscription. My research explores the ways in which the activities of Service Members contributed to the breakdown of conventional party politics, and the extent to which these MPs came to constitute a 'military' faction in the House of Commons.Political interventions by Service Members proved highly controversial. Critics denounced what they regarded as a dangerous and incongruous 'Cromwellian' intrusion into the supposedly democratic politics of the twentieth century. But Fighting MPs did not work simply to advance the agenda of the military establishment at the expense of civilian control. Service Members in the field often used parliamentary privilege to circumvent the military chain of command, sending critical accounts of their military superiors to political colleagues in Westminster and Whitehall. As one MP declared, 'we were the British equivalent of the Soviet Commissars, using the Press, the platform, the House of Commons, and private appreciations - to the rage and despair of all Brasshattery'. My research therefore also explores the novel ways in which Service Members worked to assert parliamentary authority over the military leadership.Most controversially of all, Fighting MPs who attended the House of Commons during the War came to identify themselves as the political 'representatives' of the armed forces. In doing so they were not simply acting as mouthpieces for the high command, but were consciously staking their claim to political authority on their right to speak 'on behalf' of common soldiers. At a time when an unprecedented proportion of the British population was under arms, these claims profoundly influenced contemporary debates about the nature of citizenship, the rights of electors, and the responsibilities of Parliament. By 1915, even a pillar of the establishment such as 'The Times' was arguing that a House of Commons which did not include soldiers on its benches was not truly representative of the nation, and was therefore neither competent to direct the conduct of the war nor fit to legislate on any other question of importance - from taxation to the enfranchisement of women. By exploring this controversial debate, my research profoundly challenges assumptions about the civilian nature of male political culture in Britain during the twentieth century.

现代英国通常被认为是一个文官和宪政国家，在这个政体中，军事权力牢牢服从于议会的文官权威。然而，英国的政治和军事精英，即使在被许多同时代人视为“民主”的时代，也从未构成两个完全独立和截然不同的种姓。我的研究通过对一战期间在武装部队服役的264名国会议员的研究来探索这个问题。这个项目超越了先前关于英国军民关系的狭隘的、制度性的关注，包括对专业和政治文化的研究，也解决了关于英国国家的性质和武装部队在社会中的地位的重要问题。高贵的士兵一直坐在上议院，但一个人是否可以同时担任军官(因此是皇室的仆人)和议员(因此是人民的仆人)的问题要大得多。现有的宪法先例似乎在很大程度上与第一次世界大战史无前例的情况无关。战时联合政府将正常的政治规则置于不同寻常的压力之下。在这种情况下，服兵役可以为来自敌对政党的议员提供共同的身份，甚至是共同行动的基础。到1915年，一个有影响力的军事议员游说团体，既有统一党议员，也有自由党议员，积极为引入征兵制度而奔走。我的研究探讨了现役议员的活动如何促成了传统政党政治的崩溃，以及这些议员在多大程度上构成了下议院的“军事”派别。事实证明，现役议员的政治干预极具争议性。批评人士谴责他们认为这是对20世纪所谓的民主政治的危险和不协调的“克伦威尔式”入侵。但与国会议员的斗争并不能简单地推进军方机构的议程，而牺牲了文职人员的控制。战场上的服役人员经常利用议会特权绕过军事指挥链，向威斯敏斯特和白厅的政治同僚发送对他们军事上级的批评报告。正如一位议员所宣称的那样，“我们是英国版的苏联政委，利用媒体、平台、下议院和私人的赞赏--这激怒了所有胡说八道的人。”因此，我的研究还探索了服役人员努力维护议会对军事领导权的权威的新颖方式。最具争议的是，在战争期间参加下议院的战斗议员开始将自己定位为武装部队的政治代表。他们这样做，不仅仅是充当最高司令部的喉舌，而且有意识地将他们对政治权威的要求押在他们代表普通士兵发言的权利上。在英国人口中有空前比例的人持有武器的时候，这些主张深刻地影响了当代关于公民身份的性质、选民的权利和议会的责任的辩论。到1915年，即使是像《泰晤士报》这样的建制派支柱也认为，不包括士兵在内的下议院并不真正代表国家，因此既不能指导战争的进行，也不适合就任何其他重要问题--从税收到妇女权利--立法。通过探索这场有争议的辩论，我的研究深刻地挑战了关于20世纪英国男性政治文化的平民性质的假设。

项目成果

Leading from the Front: The 'Service Members' in Parliament, the Armed Forces, and British Politics during the Great War

前线领导：第一次世界大战期间议会、武装部队和英国政治中的“军人”

• DOI: 10.1093/ehr/cev118
• 发表时间: 2015
• 期刊: The English Historical Review
• 作者: Johnson M