Search results

Introduction: the rhetoric of parliamentary debate -- The Union Societies' role in the formation of a parliamentary culture of debate -- Procedure and debate in the British parliamentary culture -- The politics of agenda in the Union debates -- The politics of debate in the Union Societies -- Conclusion: transfer of the rhetoric of procedure to British debating societies.

This paper shows how a debate conducted in the Oxford Union, the leading student debating society in Britain, was used to make a point about representation and politics in the national press, and what it means in terms of political action and who can be considered to make political arguments. In 1933 the Union debated a motion 'That this House under no circumstances will fight for its King and Country'. It was carried by a clear margin, and the scandal it caused put the role of the Union and what it represented into question. It is here argued that there were two rhetorical levels in operation, rhetoric of representation and rhetoric of debate. With the former, the Union was blamed in the national press for lacking the representative qualities it was assumed to have, and with the latter, its rules and traditions were defended as part of the functions of a political assembly. ; peerReviewed

This paper shows how a debate conducted in the Oxford Union, the leading student debating society in Britain, was used to make a point about representation and politics in the national press, and what it means in terms of political action and who can be entitled to make political claims. In 1933 the Union debated a motion "That this House will under no circumstances fight for its King and Country". It was carried by a clear majority, and the scandal it caused called the role of the Union and what it represented into question. It is argued here that there were two rhetorical levels in operation, the rhetoric of representation and the rhetoric of debate. Regarding the former, the Union was blamed in the national press for lacking the representative qualities attributed to it, and regarding the latter, its rules and traditions were defended as part of the functions of a political assembly.

British debating societies are here looked at a parliamentary perspective. The main emphasis is on the rhetorical practise of parliamentary debate, which, it is argued, constitutes the main framework of the British culture of debate. This will be approached from the perspective of how the parliamentary practises were reflected in the activities of various debating societies before and after the 1832 Reform Act. I will highlight that the rhetorical traditions of the British House of Commons were not formed in a vacuum, but, rather, shaped and adapted to constitutional changes. After the 1832 reform the practises in debating societies imitated the procedure and rules of the House of Commons more closely than before. The latter part of the essay concentrates on William Gladstone's interpretation of parliamentary debate, himself having actively contributed to various student debating societies. Gladstone's approach on debate in Parliament illustrates a more general shift in rhetorical practise away from the category of public speaking and towards a more proceduralised way of understanding parliamentary eloquence.

Summary. In this article, debating societies are considered as an inherent part of the formation of a parliamentary culture in Britain. Despite the fact that the nineteenth-century Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies were considered to be 'training grounds' for statesmen, their debating practices have not been systematically studied in relation to national politics. This is largely due to the fact that the role of debate has remained understated in studies of parliamentary history, even though it is one of the fundamental political features in the Westminster system. Nineteenth-century parliamentary debate did not just occur for its own sake, rather it had a constitutional and political dimension that was related to procedure. This article focuses on the significance of the debate culture in nineteenth century British parliamentary politics. It shows that there was an interchange of ideas and concepts between the House of Commons and the Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies that enabled the extension of parliamentary procedure and terminology outside Parliament affecting the way that political activity was understood. It discusses the extension of parliamentary culture to Union Societies during the period between the 1830s and the 1870s. Its main argument is that 'debate' was a major political feature of parliamentary politics, which was reflected in the major discussions on reform, for example, in the case of secret voting. It is shown that the Union Societies did not merely follow the lead of the House of Commons, but that they actively contributed to the debate on reforms and, at the same time, to the formation of the debate culture of which the main principle to follow Walter Bagehot (1826-77), was that putting an issue on the political agenda was itself an admission of its controversial and unfixed character. ; peerReviewed