"Useful Cinema," of What Use?: Assessing the Role of Motion Pictures in the Largest Public Relations Campaign of the 1920s
Using testimony and subpoenaed exhibits published in the seventy-two-volume record of a Federal Trade Commission investigation, this article traces the role of motion pictures in the private utility industry’s public relations campaign against municipal ownership and federal regulation in the 1920s. This article reconstructs the utility companies’ decision to employ films in its campaign; the production, distribution, and exhibition strategies for its motion pictures; and the relationship of producers to sponsoring organizations. Ultimately, the article argues that the use of film in this campaign was experimental and, relative to other media, limited, but by investigating such experiments with film, we can identify institutional agents struggling to find a “use” for cinema, thereby enabling media historians both to identify what determinants might cause an organization to find cinema more or less useful at different historical moments and to better assess cinema’s changing cultural status and social functions.
Regulating and mediating the social role of cinema in Scotland, 1896-1933
This thesis examines how early cinema’s social function was mediated by local and national institutions as well as civic agencies in Scotland between c. 1896 and 1933. It proposes a social-historical approach that is based on extensive archival research of documents such as local newspapers, town council minutes, education authority minutes and Scottish Office records. As an empirical and historical study it focuses attention on the social-historical circumstances of cinema exhibition and reception as proposed by New Cinema History. 
The thesis’ main argument is that institutional responses fell into two categories – constraining and constructive strategies to negotiate cinema’s role in Scottish society. Parts 1 and 2 discuss strategies of control which sought to limit cinema’s social impact as a commercial institution while the third part is concerned with attempts to redefine cinema’s social purpose through the creation of alternative film cultures and exhibition practices. 
The first part identifies for the first time the specificities of the legal and administrative framework within which cinemas were allowed to operate in Scotland before 1933. It contends that the legal basis of the framework was determined by the Scottish Office’s relationship with Britain’s central government, and that its application by local licensing authorities depended also on the dynamics of municipal power structures. A further argument is that Scottish licensing authorities were more resistant than their southern counterparts to interfere with the content of film shows and exercised control mainly through the regulation of the cinema space and negotiations with local cinema trade bodies. 
Part 2 analyses British national debates about the legitimacy of cinema as well as film’s potential for education, providing a discursive context for the practices explored in the first part. Centring on the 1917 and the 1925 Cinema Commissions, it focuses especially on the perceived link between cinema-going and juvenile crime and film’s usefulness as a teaching aid. These themes are explored from a Scottish perspective incorporating local debates from Edinburgh and Glasgow. This part maintains that the discourse about the negative effect of children’s cinema-going and the debate on the potential teaching value of films were connected in that they both constructed the child as an impressionable spectator that required institutional guidance and protection. 
Part 3 considers two constructive endeavours to shape early cinema’s social role in Scotland. It engages with the field of Useful Cinema and argues that this must not be confined to particular films or technologies but must include cinema exhibition practices that were religiously-, educationally- or politically motivated. First, municipal cinema is discussed as an alternative exhibition practice that tried to expand the role of the municipality as public service provider and match the ambitions of its organisers with the taste of local audiences. Second, the diversity of attempts to mediate cinema’s social role is once more illustrated in the case of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society’s cinema and film work. This is explored diachronically and demonstrates that the Society’s engagement with cinema corresponded to broader contemporary debates discussed throughout the thesis. This part illustrates that the boundaries of cinema’s social function were constantly shifting during the period under consideration and that constructive strategies to define it anticipated characteristic strands of cinema culture emerging in Scotland subsequently.
The Human Rights Act and Parliamentary Democracy
The Human Rights Act 1998 is the culmination of an aggressive campaign for the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights, a campaign in which the judges joined forces with other political activists. Variously described as 'brilliant';' 'a masterly exposition of the parliamentary draftsman's art';2 and even 'a thing of intellectual beauty',3 the Act has also been greeted as an 'ingenious compromise' between the 'maximalists' and 'minimalists', the former supporting a judicial power to invalidate legislation, as is the case in Canada.4 But although it is purported to reconcile in 'subtle' form the protection of human rights with the sovereignty of Parliament (a claim even more credible after an important but unsung Commons amendment), the Act also represents an unprecedented transfer of political power from the executive and legislature to the judiciary, and a fundamental re-structuring of our 'political constitution'.s As such it is unquestionably the most significant formal redistribution of political power in this country since 1911,6 and perhaps since 1688 when the Bill of Rights proclaimed loudly that proceedings in Parliament ought not to be questioned or impeached in any court or any other place. In the words of Baroness Williams of Crosby, we have crossed our 'constitutional Rubicon',7 at least to the extent that the courts may now declare a statute incompatible with Convention rights. The enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 was marked by an unusually high quality of debate, particularly in the House of Lords, with powerful performances by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The performance of the latter on one occasion was too much for Lord Campbell of Alloway, unaccustomed it seems to cerebral rather than ceremonial contributions in their Lordships' House. Lord Campbell was heard to protest (in a manner dubbed 'offensive' by Lord Ackner)8 about 'these escoteric lectures on law at this time of night', having 'never heard anything like this after dinner' in the 18 years he had been in the Lords.9 He had better get used to it: the law and the lawyers are about to dominate all the debates, at all times of the day and night, before and after every meal time. Indeed in the Second Reading Debate on this Bill in the House of Lords 'full of