The Parliamentary Culture of Debate in the Nineteenth-Century Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES in EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY and SOCIAL RESEARCH 456
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH 456 Taru Haapala “That in the Opinion of this House” The Parliamentary Culture of Debate in the Nineteenth-Century Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH 456 Taru Haapala "That in the Opinion of this House" The Parliamentary Culture of Debate in the Nineteenth-Century Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston yhteiskuntatieteellisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston vanhassa juhlasalissa S212 joulukuun 8. päivänä 2012 kello 12. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Jyväskylä, in auditorium S212, on December 8, 2012 at 12 o'clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2012 "That in the Opinion of this House" The Parliamentary Culture of Debate in the Nineteenth-Century Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL RESEARCH 456 Taru Haapala "That in the Opinion of this House" The Parliamentary Culture of Debate in the Nineteenth-Century Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2012 Editors Jussi Kotkavirta Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Ville Korkiakangas Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä URN:ISBN:978-951-39-4970-9 ISBN 978-951-39-4970-9 (PDF) ISBN 978-951-39-4969-3 (nid.) ISSN 0075-4625 Copyright © 2012 , by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä 2012 ABSTRACT Haapala, Taru “That in the opinion of this House”: The parliamentary culture of debate in the nineteenth-century Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies Jyväskylä, University of Jyväskylä, 2012, 238 p. (Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, ISSN 0075-4625; 456) ISBN 978-951-39-4969-3 (nid.) ISBN 978-951-39-4970-9 (PDF) Finnish summary Diss. Emphasising the historical role of parliamentary procedure in the formation of the parliamentary culture of debate of nineteenth-century Britain, this study places the Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies in the wider context of the British debating societies. Though the Union Societies have since the late 1800s been considered part of British parliamentary culture, the debating practices of the Unions have not been accorded comprehensive research that would explain why this was so, even though the role of debate in Parliament also grew at the time. The starting point of the analysis is an idea introduced by Josef Redlich (1869-1936) that a parliamentary body is an assembly of which the primary aim is not to legislate, but to debate according to certain rules. He maintained also that parliamentary bills are reducible to a series of motions, which inspires one to think that the Unions can also be seen as independent sites of a parliamen- tary style of politics. I chose to examine the Unions’ political activity from two distinct angles: the politics of agenda and the politics of debate. A rhetorical reading of the mi- nute books reveals how members of the societies used the rules of debate for their own political purposes. In the analysis, I identified repeated use of certain rhetorical topoi: ‘vote of confidence’, ‘principle’, ‘character’ and ‘expediency’. In the Union Societies, these manifested as interrelated rhetorical categories that constituted the politics of the agenda. They also appeared in the politics of de- bate related to revising and interpreting the rules, which characteristically in- volved challenges to decisions made by Union Society presidents. The procedure seems to have been the key element in guiding debates and in framing the rhetorical practices in use. It eventually linked the Union Socie- ties to the parliamentary culture of debate. However, the societies did not just follow the House of Commons model passively, but adapted it to their own po- litical activity. In this way the Union members trained themselves, in a very in- dependent and creative manner, in the parliamentary way of doing politics. Keywords: Cambridge Union Society, Oxford Union Society, nineteenth century, debate, House of Commons, parliamentary culture, procedure, rhetoric Author’s address Taru Haapala Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy P.O. Box 35 (Y 33), University of Jyväskylä [email protected] Supervisor Professor Kari Palonen Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy University of Jyväskylä Reviewers Professor Quentin Skinner Queen Mary, University of London Associate Professor Jussi Kurunmäki Stockholm University Opponent Professor Alan Finlayson University of East Anglia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As I embarked on this project, I was struggling to find a research idea that would provide me with concrete primary sources to focus on in my doctoral thesis. As it turned out, I was still collecting research material in my last year as a PhD student. At least, I got what I wished for. I would like to especially thank Professor Quentin Skinner. He was the person who initially encouraged me to visit the archives and start digging. Without his support I might not have pursued the topic of the Union Societies in the first place. For tireless and enthusiastic assistance in the later process of my study, I want to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Kari Palonen. The funding for this study was provided by his Academy of Finland Professorship project The Politics of Dissensus: Parliamentarism, Rhetoric and Conceptual History (2008-2012). I also want to thank Professor José María Rosales, University of Málaga, for inviting me to take part in the two research projects of the Spanish National Research Plan directed by him, The Rhetorics of Democracy (FFI2008- 00039) and The Civic Constellation (FFI2011-23388). I would also like to offer my thanks to the Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies for kindly giving me permission to visit their archives and get ac- quainted with their historical records. The assistance of the staff at the Manu- script Department of the Cambridge University Library as well as the staff at the Oxfordshire Record Office in Cowley was helpful and efficient. In the background there are a number of people who deserve my warmest thanks for reading various drafts of the manuscript along the process: Professor Pasi Ihalainen, the reviewers of the manuscript, Professor Skinner and Associ- ate Professor Jussi Kurunmäki, and Bill Hellberg who revised my English. Ad- ditionally, I have received invaluable help from Dr. Evgeny Roshchin, Dr. Anna Björk and Dr. Ere Nokkala, who kindly read and commented on various sec- tions of the early manuscript. A warm thanks is also due to Dr. Paul Seaward, director of the History of Parliament project, for offering advice on literature regarding nineteenth-century House of Commons procedural changes. It has been a pleasure to be a part of our group of PhD candidates at the Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy. For me it has provided a very unique opportunity to interact with other doctoral students who share similar interests. I especially wish to thank my fellow PhD candidates and dear friends, Anitta Kananen and Hanna-Mari Kivistö. Their wise words and support have kept me going. Finally, I want to thank my family and friends. When I found myself tan- gled up in my research problems, you reminded me of the more important things in life. Jyväskylä, 9 November 2012 Taru Haapala TABLE TABLE 1 Motions related to confidence presented in the Union Societies ......... 86 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Public business of the Cambridge Union Society .......................... 158 Appendix 2: Public business of the Oxford Union Society ................................. 203 Appendix 3: A summary of the rule changes in the Union Societies ................ 235 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDICES CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 9 1.1 The relevance of procedure in parliamentary politics .......................... 9 1.2 The problematics and approach of the study ....................................... 11 1.3 The sources and my interpretation ........................................................ 16 1.4 Parliamentary procedure and the practices of the Union Societies ...................................................................................................... 22 1.5 The outline of the study ........................................................................... 28 2 THE DEBATING PROCEDURES OF THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY HOUSE OF COMMONS ................................................................................... 30 2.1 ‘Parliamentary government’ and the role of debate in the House of Commons .............................................................................................. 30 2.2 Revision of debating procedures from 1837 to 1861 ............................ 35 2.3 Procedure at the core of parliamentary debating ................................ 45 3 THE BRITISH CULTURE OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ...................... 47 3.1 The politicisation of debate ..................................................................... 48 3.2 The Union Societies: their foundation and promotion of debate ...... 56 3.3 Publicity, press and parliamentary journalism .................................... 64 3.4 Rhetoric and parliamentary eloquence ................................................. 69 3.5 Nineteenth-century interpretations