Chiswickite - formerly The Croydonian

First things first, the state of the Serpentine:

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON (Lib, and he of the Crystal Palace) said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it is still his intention to proceed with the Works as proposed by Mr. Hawksley for partially cleansing the water in the Serpentine.

And came the reply:

MR. FITZROY replied, that it was his intention to proceed with the works proposed by Mr. Hawksley, not as stated by his hon. Friend for the purpose of partially cleansing, but of totally and effectually cleansing, the water in the Serpentine. He thought that great misapprehension prevailed upon this subject. Two questions, which were quite independent of one another, had been mixed up in this discussion: the first relating to the mud at the bottom of the river, and the second with respect to the water itself....He believed that if the plan he proposed were successful perfect purity and limpidity would be secured in the water of the Serpentine, and that the mud, having lost its organic power, would no longer evolve any noxious gases, but would cease to be a source of ill-health or annoyance to the inhabitants and frequenters of the neighbourhood. It was therefore with the water of the Serpentine, not with the mud, that he proposed to deal.

Mr Stephenson (Con, and yes, that one):
...He had been in the habit of visiting the place for many years, and had watched closely its want of purification. He had held the office of Commissioner of Sewers, and had devoted his attention a good deal to the means of excluding from the Serpentine the sewage of Bays water, which formerly fell into it to a large extent, and the exclusion of that sewage had undoubtedly, to a proportionate extent, led to the purification of the riverHe had been in the habit of visiting the place for many years, and had watched closely its want of purification. He had held the office of Commissioner of Sewers, and had devoted his attention a good deal to the means of excluding from the Serpentine the sewage of Bays water, which formerly fell into it to a large extent, and the exclusion of that sewage had undoubtedly, to a proportionate extent, led to the purification of the river...He was in the habit of driving past it twice a day, and rode there occasionally for some hours, but he had never found, for the last three or four years, anything so offensive to his olfactory nerves as to lead him to coincide in the outcry that was recently raised. He believed that outcry was entirely unfounded, because, whatever the state of the Serpentine might have been, it was not now, to the best of his judgment, in an offensive condition".

And so on. Two of our greatest engineers in one debate. I doubt that there any engineers in the Commons these days, let alone towering geniuses like those two.

Divorce

MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, that the feelings of the women ought to be consulted in this matter as well as those of the men. He did not believe the Divorce Court was in conformity with the wishes of the women of England, and he thought the House ought to retrace their steps and abolish the system altogether.

Nice of him to speak on their behalf, eh?

The Attorney General said....He regretted to say that the court was a place of resort—according to the accounts that were given to him—of characters of the worst description. Crowds congregated there for the purpose of hearing details which could only give gratification to depraved and diseased minds...One might well imagine a lady of sensitive feelings, and under the distressing necessity of seeking the redress of her grievous wrongs, shrinking from having recourse to a tribunal where she would have to relate the story of her husband's cruelty in the presence of a jeering, laughing, and prurient mob, eager to catch at every indecent particular.

MR. BOWYER said, he was one of those who strongly opposed the Divorce Bill, on the ground that it would be most injurious to the morality of the country. Now, after it had been in operation a short time, the Attorney General was obliged to come forward, in the name of the Government, and propose the introduction of an entirely new principle in the English law, namely, enabling a Judge to shut up his court and proceed secretly. The fact was that the proceedings in the Divorce Court had become so scandalous, and were so injurious to the public morality, that the hon. and learned Gentleman felt bound to introduce this clause

Speeding forward 50 years, dreadnoughts:

Mr. MIDDLEMORE asked how many of the four additional battleships to be laid down on 1st April next were to be built in the Royal Dockyards, and how many by private contractors?

Mr. McKENNA The four ships will be contract built.

Marvellous stuff.

The 1909 equivalent of Rosindell had St Helena in his sights:

Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY asked whether the present condition of the inhabitants of St. Helena was satisfactory, or whether they were still suffering from the effects of unemployment and stagnation of trade?

Colonel SEELY The situation in St. Helena has not materially altered since I replied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's inquiry in May last, except that the Governor has now reported that he hopes that it will not be necessary for the Government mill to close down, at any rate until the end of the year, as a large supply of mature leaves has been obtained from a farmer who was not satisfied with the results obtained from his own mill.

Given that a hurricane could have levelled St Helena weeks before without the government knowing, I think Seely was being a bit glib. Wish I knew which were the leaves of which he spoke.

All hail the smokers' friend:

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the usual monthly permission was given last April to remove tobacco from the Victoria Docks after 4 p.m., he will charge duty at the old rate on tobacco which would have been removed in the ordinary course of business after 4 p.m. on 29th April last?

Mr. HOBHOUSE My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to accede to the hon. Baronet's request.

And an one:

Mr. MADDISON (Lab) asked the President of the Board of Trade how many pianofortes and reed and pipe organs were manufactured in the United Kingdom in 1907 and 1908, respectively, giving separately those made in London and the provinces. How many...were exported in 1907 and 1908, respectively, giving the countries to which they were sent and the value declared for Customs purposes; how many were imported...how many were re-exported

Mr. TENNANT There are no official records of the number of pianos and reed and pipe organs manufactured in the United Kingdom. These articles are included in the official accounts of imports and exports under the heads of "Pianos" and "Organs and Harmoniums" respectively, and particulars of numbers and values imported and exported under each of these heads are given in the "Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom." I am sending to the hon. Member a statement giving the fullest available details.

Not sure what I can add to that, so I will not add anything.

It is time for the annual UN gabfest where the Argentinians moan about the Falklands, and the 'Special Committee on Decolonization recommended today that the General Assembly call for direct negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom over that Non-Self-Governing Territories'.

Prior to throwing in a few quotes, here are some of that committee's members: Cuba, Iran, China and Syria. All splendidly upstanding liberal democracies, I am sure we will all agree.

Firstly, Jorge Taiana, Argentina’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship has hauled out his usual warhorses (the whole discusssion varied little from that last year), including this 'shocker': "The United Kingdom alleged that it would only accept a resumption of negotiations should the inhabitants of the Islands so wish, thereby ignoring the will of United Nations Member States".

And the rebuttal: "Petitioner Richard Stevens, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), said in that regard that it would be unfair to apply sovereignty rights to the Falklands case alone. “Imagine every country complying with these demands with every international border reverting back to how it was in 1833. Would America for example, return part of California to Mexico, or Russia demand Alaska?” That view of territorial integrity would also lead to unbelievable global chaos".

Without spending too long mulling on this one, and pausing only for a quick peer at the 1836 SDUK map of Europe (every home should have one) on the wall next to my desk, only four substantial European counties would find their 2009 borders unchanged in the last 179 years - Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Although the latter is arguable, what with land reclaimation and so on.

Another Falklander gave Argentina both barrels: Another Member of the Legislative Council, Janet Robertson, said there were fundamental reasons why there was “no foreseeable prospect” that the United Kingdom would agree to negotiate. Argentina asserted that the principle of self-determination was not applicable due to the pre-existing sovereignty dispute, and that the principle of territorial integrity was of superior validity to that of self-determination. Annexation by the Argentine State was, therefore, the only acceptable solution to the Government of Argentina, a goal enshrined in its Constitution, she said. That pre-determined outcome was wholly contrary to the wishes and interests of the islanders and, consequently, unacceptable to the United Kingdom. A resumption of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom, without the participation and agreement of the islanders, could not, by definition, lead to a peaceful solution".

Anyway, the LatAm countries lined up with Argentina, as per usual, and do not really merit quoting, so on to our friends from Freetown:

"Victoria Sulimani (Sierra Leone) reaffirmed her delegation’s commitment to the principle of self-determination of all peoples, noting that colonialism in all its forms and manifestations was incompatible with the principles of the Charter, Chapter 11 of which ensured the responsibility of administrating Powers to promote the well-being of the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories. It was in that spirit that Sierra Leone supported the position that the population of the Falkland Islands should be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination.

Not quite as good as this one from SL in last year's debate:

"his delegation had repeatedly maintained that the rights of the islanders who had lived on the Territory for 175 years should be paramount in any negotiated settlement. Subjecting people to alien domination constituted a violation of their right to freely determine their political status and pursue development. There was no dispute that the people were the holders of the right to self-determination".

Now if only the Falklands, Gib, Ascension, Pitcairn etc had an MP in Westminster we could make the UN shove it.