HC Deb 23 March 1847 vol 91 c324

asked the First Commissioner of the Railway Board why the office of inspector general of railways, so essential for the information and guidance of the board, had not yet been filled up? It was now five months since Sir Charles Pasley's services were dispensed with, and the responsibility now rested with the former assistant inspectors without any increase of salary.


said, the reason why no officer to be called the "inspector general of railways" had been appointed was, that no such officer, hearing any such title, was required to be appointed under the Act for the regulation of railways. That Act required that two officers should be appointed, and in consequence two gentlemen, called inspectors of railways, had been appointed, who were very efficiently discharging their duties. He did not know whether the senior officer was termed simply inspector or inspector general; but no individual had been appointed under the latter designation. In the Railway Department of the Board of Trade there was an officer called the inspector general; but it was thought better, under the new board, to appoint two officers to be called inspectors. The hon. and gallant Member, however, might rest assured that either in the appointment of the officers, or in the fixing of their salaries, care would be taken that the duties were discharged.

Back to