Politics and the Mass Press in Long Edwardian Britain 1896-1914
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Politics and the Mass Press in Long Edwardian Britain 1896-1914 Christopher Shoop-Worrall A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Sheffield Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Journalism Studies Submission Date: September 2019 2 Contents Abstract Page 5 Acknowledgements Page 7 Chapter One: Introduction Page 10 Chapter Two: Histories of Press and Politics in Edwardian Britain Page 24 Chapter Three: Method Page 63 Chapter Four: Elections as Spectacle Page 100 Chapter Five: Everyday Elections Page 132 Chapter Six: ‘Their Views and Ours’: Politicians and the New Dailies Page 170 Chapter Seven: Conclusion Page 234 Further Research Page 246 List of Figures Page 249 List of Tables Page 262 Bibliography Page 263 3 4 Abstract: This thesis explores the political significance of the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Daily Mirror1 during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries2. On the one hand, the thesis explores and analyses the three newspapers’ political contents published during the four general elections of the period: 1900, 1906, and January and December of 1910. On the other hand, the thesis investigates how these three newspapers – all of which launched during the period under investigation – were understood throughout the Long Edwardian era by people across three British political parties: the Liberals, the Conservatives/Unionists3, and Labour. It is contended that the rise and consolidation of this new daily mass press represented an important period not just in histories of the British press, but in histories of the British political system. The ways in which these new newspapers reported on political affairs made them a significant part of the political culture of pre-Great War Britain, as they helped disseminate political discourse to larger numbers of politically-engaged citizens than any previous iteration of mass British media. They achieved this through election-time political coverage which drew on much of the emotive sensationalism of their human-interest content, as well as the wider mass entertainment and consumer culture of Long Edwardian Britain. This array of written and visual content across all three newspapers helped to represent elections to their readers as events that were entertaining, accessible, and where the archetypal ‘man in the street’ held considerable political power. Moreover, their potential as a 1 Hereafter, the three newspapers investigated in this thesis will be frequently referred to collectively as the ‘New Dailies’. 2 Hereafter, the period of investigation as defined by this study is defined as the ‘Long Edwardian’ period. 3 Hereafter, the words ‘Conservative/s’ and ‘Unionist/s’ will be used interchangeably to refer to the same political party. 5 medium for mass political communication resonated at the time, as people from Britain's major political parties reacted to and understood the political significance of these new, hugely-popular newspapers in different ways. This thesis will contribute to a number of academic fields. Firstly, it challenges existing chronologies of the history of the modern popular press. Rather than representing a decline from past iterations of popular political presses, or signalling an inevitable progression towards the popular press of the later twentieth century, the new dailies were an important conduit for mass public participation in politics through their shared voice that articulated political content in ways that appeared to reflect and connect with the lives and interests of large sections of British society. Moreover, they were a key component of the masculine mass election culture which has been noted by recent scholarship on the politics of Long Edwardian Britain. Secondly, it highlights the importance, and often-overlooked potential, of early popular media as a historical news source. Traditionally overlooked, the content of emergent popular newspapers is used to provide important insight into how traditionally elite areas of public life – such as politics – were represented, and connected to, the lives of mass audiences. Thirdly, this thesis contributes to histories of both pre-Great War British political parties and wider political culture, by exploring the differing extents to which different political groups understood, and reacted to, the communicative potential of the popular press, and how these reactions add to or challenge existing conclusions about the relationships between those parties, the press and the wider electorate. 6 Acknowledgements No PhD is a sole operation. The number of people who deserve credit and thanks for helping this project reach this final stage are many in number, and in honesty all deserve more than the space that an acknowledgments section permits. Practically, the research undertaken for this thesis could not have happened without the invaluable guidance and patience of the staff at the archives accessed throughout the years of this project. Particular thanks goes to the staff at the People’s History Museum in Manchester, the Working Class Movement Library in Salford, the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library (especially Jeremy McIlwaine), the Bishopsgate Institute, the British Library, the archives within the London School of Economics, and Annie Pinder at the Parliamentary Archives in Westminster. Thanks also to Dr Alexander Morrison, Dr James Thompson, Professor Stuart Jones, and Professor Mark Towsey, for helping mould this project in its earliest stages. I have had the privilege of completing this thesis at an outstanding institution. Sheffield’s Department of Journalism Studies was full of guidance, friendship and inspiration from the start. An enormous thanks is owed to Professor Martin Conboy for being an outstanding supervisor and academic mentor, and for helping this thesis grow from that first meeting during my MA into something I am proud to call my research. Also to Professor Adrian Bingham, whose rigorous input, comments and guidance as second supervisor have been immeasurably helpful. I was lucky enough to become a part of an exceptional PGR community, who always made me feel at home and provided friendship and intellectual stimulation at all times. To Chrysi, Sara, Divya, Francesca, Minyao, James, Jake, Gemma, and Aiman: thank you. Thanks also to Dr John Steel, Professor Jackie Harrison, Professor Ralph Negrine, Dr Clare Burke, Dr Petar Milin, and Jess Meacham, for helping me in a variety of ways along the way to this point. 7 Latterly, UCFB have not only given a fortunate young scholar a dream first academic post, but they have provided an academic and personal environment in which I have never been happier or more valued. To my academic colleagues, especially Greg, Colm, Helen, and Stacy: yes, I have finished it now. To Jane, Mark, Jon, Laura, Suzanne, and Alexa: thank you for making me feel so welcome. As this slides further into gushing sincerity, a special thanks also to Stephanie Leckie and Nick Minns, who nurtured my love of history throughout school. I did say I was a fan of the ‘Liberal landslide’ lesson… The biggest debts of thanks are owed to those closest to me, as they have had to spend more of their lives suffering me than anybody else. To Andrew, thanks for always showing interest even when mine was waning, and for being a daily reminder that anything is achievable. To Stephen, you showed me the way throughout. Not content with copying your choices for much of my childhood, I also went all the way and did a PhD, though you’ll say Chemistry is ‘better’. Agree to disagree. To my parents, thank you for a lifetime of interest, support and love. You are the reason I am able to have become what I am. No, however, I won’t be getting a haircut or a ‘proper job’ any time soon… Most of all, to my amazing wife Dr Stevie Shoop-Worrall. For (briefly) feigning interest whenever I ramble on about my research; for humbling me daily with your academic excellence, your intelligence, and your loveable cheekiness; for cheering my successes and consoling my failings; for your incredible raspberry cappuccino cakes; for welcoming me into your amazing family; for being the kind of person I can only dream of being …thank you so, so much. Finally, we can be Dr and Dr Shoop-Worrall – always knew however you would beat me to it. The question remains however…who is ‘Fishy Bob’? 8 9 Chapter One: Introduction ‘(I am) generally not a politician… a teetotaller, anti-vaccinationist, or a vegetarian, or any sort of crank… industrious… casual and intermittent interest in football matches and race meetings… I like the theatre and the music hall – the latter, perhaps the more… sympathetic, but not sentimental… England for the English, a happy England populated by prosperous Englishman… I am the Man in the Street.’4 Published on the first day of the 1906 general election campaign, a news article from page four of the Daily Express claimed to be written from the perspective of the ‘man in the street’. This individual claimed to be ‘the Man who can Control our Destinies’. He was the person from whom all political parties would be seeking a vote. This same man in the street was the individual, according to the dismissive comments of the then-Prime Minister and Conservative leader Lord Salisbury, who ran and read the Daily Mail from its inception in May 1896: ‘a newspaper produced by office boys for office boys’.5 Salisbury’s negativity ignored the importance of who the Mail, by his own admission, was particularly appealing to. All three of the new dailies – the Express, Mail and the Mirror – built their successes throughout the Long Edwardian period upon their shared ability to speak to the office- 4 ‘I am the Man in the Street’, Daily Express 12 January 1906, p. 4. 5 A. N. Wilson, The Victorians (New York, 2003), p. 590. 10 working man in the street, and millions of other lower-middle- and upper-working-class6 British citizens whose lives resonated with the Express’s short biography.7 This thesis identifies the significance of the Long Edwardian period within histories of both the British press and the British political system through a parallel analysis.