NEW STAMP-OFFICE IN EDINBURGH. (Hansard, 26 June 1821)

§ Mr. Hume

called the attention of the 1341 House to an instance of disregard to the public business on the part of government. A new Stamp-office being wanted, a gentleman was appointed to search for a convenient building. Such a place was accordingly found; but ministers, in order to favour an individual, had, not withstanding the recommendations of the hoard of Stamps and the board of Works in its favuur, decided on building a new office in a less appropriate situation, with fewer conveniences and at a greater expense. To him this appeared one of the grossest jobs that had ever come within his recollection. The only person that had in the first instance recommended the situation preferred, was a grocer of the name of Johnson; but the work having been begun early in 1818, in 1819 lord Melville had examined it, and pronounced the building to be suitable. The work had also been examined by the lord advocate, and on the opinions of lord Melville, the lord advocate, and Johnson the grocer, it had been carried on^ in opposition to the recommendation of the board of Stamps. He took occasion to notice another instance of negligence on the part of government. The revenue of Scotland, amounting, to 3,000,000l., had been transmitted to this country by certain bankers, at forty days. A friend of his had offered to transmit it at twenty, and to give exchequer bills in advance, or any security that might be required. This, however, had not been attended to, and the others having come down to thirty days, the chancellor of the exchequer had left the business in their hands, and thus a loss was sustained by the country. The House first offered for a Stamp-office had a hundred feet of ground belonging to if. The spot finally chosen had not a foot of ground belonging to it behind the building, and it was liable to be built close up. To prevent this he understood a 1,000 guineas had recently been paid. An hon. baronet had engaged to purchase the ground for a much smaller sum; but he understood the chancellor of the Exchequer, with much good nature towards him, but with little regard for the public purse, had consented to let him off, and had not held him to his agreement. The building had cost 9,100l., and the total expense was upwards of 12,000l., the hon. member concluded by moving a resolution detailing the principal facts to which he had referred, and condemning the whole of the transaction.