HC Deb 03 July 1882 vol 271 cc1250-1
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that Mr. Abernethy, C.E. and Dr. Williamson, F.R.S. two of the members appointed on the Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the Thames, have already prejudged the questions to be submitted to the Commission, Mr. Abernethy having stated, on the 7th of December 1875, at a meeting of the Institution of Civil Engineers— As Sir Joseph Bazalgette was present he wished to take the opportunity of expressing an opinion he had long formed, that the half measure of discharging the sewage of the Metropolis in the Thames at Crossness would eventually turn out a source of great pollution to the river; and further, having appeared before the Commission appointed to inquire into the presence of deposits in the Thames, arising from sewage at Crossness, as a witness to support his former expressed opinion as to pollution, and Dr. Williamson having expressed opinions to the same effect in reports to the Conservators of the Thames, stating that The Metropolitan Board of Works have carried the nuisance a little further down the river, and— That the decomposition of organic matter in these mud deposits (meaning mud deposits alleged to be deposited from sewage thrown into the Thames from the works of the Metropolitan Board of Works) keeps up a constant source of pollution of the river; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Government will reconsider the constitution of the Commission?

MR. DODSON

Sir, when those two gentlemen were placed upon the Commission the Government were not aware that they had expressed any opinion upon the question; but even if they had been aware that such was the case it would not have altered their decision. The hon. Member must be well aware that the mere fact of having expressed an opinion is no disqualification for a Member of either branch of the Legislature acting on a Committee, or for such Member or any other person serving upon a Royal Commission. In the present case, the opinions quoted appear to have been expressed some years ago, and having regard to the professional eminence and the high character of the gentlemen referred to, the Government cannot for a moment suppose that they will fail to discharge the duty of a quasi-judicial position with complete impartiality.