This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from the King’S Research Portal At
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ The Language of British Electoral Politics 1880-1910 Blaxill, Luke Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 27. Sep. 2021 The Language of British Electoral Politics 1880-1910 by LUKE RICHARD HENRY BLAXILL Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History, School of Arts and Humanities. King's College London, University of London March, 2012 First Supervisor: Dr. Paul Readman, King's College London Second Supervisor: Prof. Willard McCarty, King's College London © King's College London, University of London - 1 - ABSTRACT This dissertation develops a new methodology for the study of British election speeches, and indeed political language more generally. It electronically analyses purpose-built multi-million word databanks ('corpora') of Liberal and Conservative public speeches delivered in the nine general elections held during the golden age of platform oratory, 1880-1910. It uses the region of East Anglia as its central case-study. The corpora are used to investigate the presentation of popular Liberalism and Conservatism by platform speakers during this crucial period. The corpora are interrogated with computer software to systematically and authoritatively quantify how far key issues, values, traditions, and personalities manifested themselves in wider party discourse. This is reinforced with a close manual reading of the speeches in order to strike an equal methodological balance between novel quantification and traditional qualification. As such, the dissertation is a potential answer to a much-debated methodological problem in Political History which has arisen from the impact of the postmodernist 'linguistic turn'. Namely, how can historians of political language combine close readings of speeches and writings with a wider explanatory ambition, and assess power, scope, and typicality in wider discourses of billions of words? The dissertation uses corpora to reassess a number of central historical debates over four chronological chapters. The first finds that historians have considerably underestimated the transformative impact of the 1883-85 reforms on rural party language, and the purchase of Chamberlain's Unauthorized Programme. The second and third contend that the centrality of Home Rule and Imperialism in the late 1880s and 1890s have been exaggerated. The fourth argues that the New Liberalism's linguistic impact was relatively weak, and failed to comprehensively contain the message of the emerging Labour alternative. More fundamentally, the dissertation contends that electoral language was a distinct discourse: an elastic, interconnected debate rather than parallel streams of speeches which passively reflected wider developments in society and politics. In this respect, it argues that Conservatives better understood, and better exploited, the platform as a partisan debating tool in these years. - 2 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation – in production for five and a half years – could not have been written without the contributions of a number of individuals to whom I am much indebted: Dr. Paul Readman, for supervising the project. As well as providing far-sighted advice throughout, he also commented on written work very quickly. His course – 'Electoral Politics in Britain, 1867-1945' – which I took as an undergraduate on an exchange programme, was one of the main reasons I became interested in this subject. As well as a good academic relationship, my greatest debt to him is personal. He showed faith in me and my project at the early stages when, for long periods, it looked likely that I would never be able to fund it. In this respect, his willingness to write me no less than 58 references – to all manner of strange places in search of funds – was essential. My PhD project itself has also no doubt been as unusual and challenging to supervise as I must have been. Few supervisors would have been so open-minded, and for that in particular, he has my profound thanks. Prof. Willard McCarty, for acting as the second-supervisor at the department of Digital Humanities. His input into the project went well beyond offering technical advice. Most useful was his wisdom, and ability to view methodological problems through a lens largely uncoloured by the preconceptions and biases which naturally attach themselves to those who practice any academic discipline in isolation. His questions of the methodology were often simple, but always searching. The wide range of references that can be found in this dissertation are in large part a testimony to him. Dr. Paul Seaward, for inviting me to work as a research assistant at the History of Parliament Trust. I enjoyed this work immensely, and it provided vital flexible income that helped support my PhD. Prof. Jonathan Parry, for commenting and helping develop various early drafts of this PhD proposal, and for writing a large number of references. Prof. Arthur Burns and Dr. John Lavagnino, for conducting my upgrade viva, and for making many helpful suggestions for improvement. Dr. Paul Rayson, was the first Corpus Linguist I met some years before my project, and immediately piqued my interest in the field. He also later suggested a number of references which were very useful. Dr. Kathryn Rix, for supplying some useful references. Drs. Jon Lawrence, and Alex Windscheffel, for providing an enjoyable and intellectually stimulating viva examination. - 3 - The Arts and Humanities Data Service (now the Centre for e-Research), for introducing me to the Digital Humanities, and ultimately in encouraging me to pursue this methodology. The staff at the Ipswich and Norwich Record Offices, the King's Lynn Public Library, and Yarmouth Public Library were thoroughly professional and courteous throughout my many visits. At Ipswich, I would especially like to acknowledge the searchroom assistant Bruce Martin, who remembered me – and my research – each time I visited over more than half a decade. I would also like to thank the staff at Yarmouth, who sourced a large number of local speeches themselves on my instructions. At the Norwich Heritage Centre, I would particularly like to praise the installation of the microfilm-scanning computer, and the convenient accessibility of its USB port. To my parents, for their forbearance and acceptance of the path I eventually choose for myself, and for their eternal willingness to provide emotional and practical support whenever and wherever it was needed. In particular, I ultimately owe my interest in elections to my father, and some late nights. The Empire Fish Bar, the Fisherman's Hut, the Tall House, the Bazou Inn, and Chop Chop, for providing late-opening refuge points for a hungry PhD student on a tight budget. The members of the Debating and Geek Societies, in whose company I spent many happy hours. Jacob Howard, the man who, over the years this project germinated, accompanied me in reminiscing and watching the world go by over pint glasses in the Cittie of Yorke, the Knights Templar, the Churchill, the Woodman, the Sherlock Holmes, and others. There can't be many men worthy of owing a Zoatimental, but I think the best compliment I can give him is that he is one of them. Tim Mannveille, my flatmate for three years, whose enquiring and curious mind encouraged me to see problems – both academic and real life – from unusual but always insightful perspectives. Zoe Bidgood, Gina Blaxill, David Blaxill, Pamela De La Fosse, Frankie Evans, Chris Hall, Jacob Howard, Robert Knapp, Taym Saleh, and Tom Wein, for acting as proofreaders. The zuu-zuus on the zuu-zuu mat, who were an important source of mental and physical comfort during the days spent preparing for my viva. Gina Blaxill, a person with whom I have shared so much for so long. She helped keep my life colourful, and made the times away from research many times more enjoyable. From the Historian, to Soldier Island, through the Hidden Palace, to the latest finale of Chronomania. Thank you, Inspector. - 4 - It also seems apt to acknowledge the people who really made this dissertation possible: the often forgotten men who mounted the platform to talk for many hours about politics, whether or not anyone was actually listening. Writing today in an age where popular political communication is relegated largely to soundbites, slogans, and photocalls, it is difficult to begrudge them at least some small degree of admiration. Funding This PhD was twice rejected by the Arts and Humanities Research Council for a scholarship. As it transpired, I probably owe them a somewhat ironic thanks, as the project was instead funded in its entirety by a rather unlikely combination of voluntary bodies.