The Melville Monument
in the centre of St Andrew Square Edinburgh
The Melville Monument is a large column and statue, built by 1827 to memorialise Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville (1742–1811). Yet the City now wants to dedicate the controversial Henry Dundas monument to those enslaved because of Dundas’ own actions! What happened between 1827-2020 to take Dundas from hero to anti-hero?
In 2017 the City Council, responding to a petition from environmental campaigner, Adam Ramsay, convened a Committee to draft the re-wording of a plaque to reflect controversial aspects of Dundas' history. The Committee included anti-racism campaigner-academic Sir Geoff Palmer and historian Michael Fry who proposed that by arguing for gradual abolition, Dundas actually supported abolition in a pro-slavery parliament.
In June 2020, with an international outcry over murders of American blacks, Palmer reiterated calls for a new plaque, or a petition to remove the monument altogether! While a permanent plaque was delayed, the Council installed a temporary, explanatory plaque in July 2020. They used the intended wording of the permanent plaque from the Committee, with Council & Edinburgh World Heritage members.
In Mar 2021 the Council approved the installation of a permanent plaque, dedicated to the memory of the half a million Africans whose ongoing enslavement continued. Dundas' actions didn’t invent slavery but he defended and expanded the British empire. Yes, he imposed colonial rule on indigenous peoples and curbed democratic dissent in Scotland. In response, the current Viscount Melville criticised the wording.
Dundas was born into a very distinguished Scottish legal family. After studying Law at Edinburgh Uni then practising, he first entered Parliament in 1774. Soon Dundas became Lord Advocate and appropriated immense power over Scottish affairs. He was particularly interested in the welfare of the Highlands, founding the Highland Society in 1784.
Tory-aligned, Dundas gained influence under Prime Minister William Pitt and soon became Home Secretary. He suppressed popular unrest following the 1788-9 French Revolution. He supported consolidation of the Empire, and the Union of Great Britain with Ireland alongside Catholic emancipation. In the Commons, Dundas opposed William Wilberforce's legislative efforts to immediately end the slave trade.
As First Lord of the Admiralty, he strengthened the Royal Navy before the Battle of Trafalgar. Becoming Viscount Melville in 1802, Dundas was impeached for misappropriation of naval funds, and tried by the House of Lords. Found not guilty on all charges, he re-entered the Privy Council and died in May 1811.
Clearly Dundas was a dominant political figure. The idea of building a monument to him was first raised at a Pitt Club meeting, urging Vice Admiral Sir William Hope to start a Melville Monument Committee. In government, Dundas had been loved for advancing measures to support Royal Navy sailors and their dependents. So the project was first led by naval officers and supported by sailors’ subscriptions, along with civic, legal and family figures.
By late 1818, the location Committee settled on St Andrew Square in Edinburgh's New Town. William Burn, an architect sympathetic to Dundas' Tory politics, was engaged and the square owners agreed to the scheme by Ap 1819. The marble column was 45m and topped by a 4.2m sandstone statue of Dundas designed by Francis Leggatt Chantrey and carved by Robert Forrest, a prominent landmark. The statue depicted its subject clad in a peer’s robes, facing west along George St with his left hand on his chest - tall and muscular, with striking features. But the project was not completed until 1827 and not paid off until 1837.
Tory-aligned, Dundas gained influence under Prime Minister William Pitt and soon became Home Secretary. He suppressed popular unrest following the 1788-9 French Revolution. He supported consolidation of the Empire, and the Union of Great Britain with Ireland alongside Catholic emancipation. In the Commons, Dundas opposed William Wilberforce's legislative efforts to immediately end the slave trade.
As First Lord of the Admiralty, he strengthened the Royal Navy before the Battle of Trafalgar. Becoming Viscount Melville in 1802, Dundas was impeached for misappropriation of naval funds, and tried by the House of Lords. Found not guilty on all charges, he re-entered the Privy Council and died in May 1811.
Clearly Dundas was a dominant political figure. The idea of building a monument to him was first raised at a Pitt Club meeting, urging Vice Admiral Sir William Hope to start a Melville Monument Committee. In government, Dundas had been loved for advancing measures to support Royal Navy sailors and their dependents. So the project was first led by naval officers and supported by sailors’ subscriptions, along with civic, legal and family figures.
By late 1818, the location Committee settled on St Andrew Square in Edinburgh's New Town. William Burn, an architect sympathetic to Dundas' Tory politics, was engaged and the square owners agreed to the scheme by Ap 1819. The marble column was 45m and topped by a 4.2m sandstone statue of Dundas designed by Francis Leggatt Chantrey and carved by Robert Forrest, a prominent landmark. The statue depicted its subject clad in a peer’s robes, facing west along George St with his left hand on his chest - tall and muscular, with striking features. But the project was not completed until 1827 and not paid off until 1837.
marble column was 45m, topped by a 4.2m sandstone statue of Dundas
BBC
Scottish memorials back then were often figures from the arts or history. Such figures expressed antique nationalism and Unionist nationalism, asserting Scotland's unique national identity without challenging its place within the Union. So Dundas was defending the notion that Scotland was not a colony, but an equal partner in the Union. By the 1830s, however, the town council recorded the criticisms of some citizens who objected to the city maintaining a memorial to a figure now with immoral policies.
C20th and C21st
Historic Environment Scotland called the monument as one of the most prominent landmarks in Edinburgh, occupying a fine position on the New Town ridge. Relevant to its origin as a tribute from the Royal Navy, its position made it visible from ships in the Firth of Forth.
C20th and C21st
Historic Environment Scotland called the monument as one of the most prominent landmarks in Edinburgh, occupying a fine position on the New Town ridge. Relevant to its origin as a tribute from the Royal Navy, its position made it visible from ships in the Firth of Forth.
The Melville Monument looks over the Firth of Forth
Facebook
The monument has been protected as a Category A listed building since 1966. In 2003, the Institution of Civil Engineers placed an explanatory plaque to the monument at the western entrance to the garden. In 2008 the square was redeveloped for £2.4m, fully opening to the public!
Also in 2008 Edinburgh World Heritage supported the conservation as part of its Twelve Monuments scheme. But inevitably the monument faced increasing controversy.
Also in 2008 Edinburgh World Heritage supported the conservation as part of its Twelve Monuments scheme. But inevitably the monument faced increasing controversy.
In 2017 the City Council, responding to a petition from environmental campaigner, Adam Ramsay, convened a Committee to draft the re-wording of a plaque to reflect controversial aspects of Dundas' history. The Committee included anti-racism campaigner-academic Sir Geoff Palmer and historian Michael Fry who proposed that by arguing for gradual abolition, Dundas actually supported abolition in a pro-slavery parliament.
In June 2020, with an international outcry over murders of American blacks, Palmer reiterated calls for a new plaque, or a petition to remove the monument altogether! While a permanent plaque was delayed, the Council installed a temporary, explanatory plaque in July 2020. They used the intended wording of the permanent plaque from the Committee, with Council & Edinburgh World Heritage members.
In Mar 2021 the Council approved the installation of a permanent plaque, dedicated to the memory of the half a million Africans whose ongoing enslavement continued. Dundas' actions didn’t invent slavery but he defended and expanded the British empire. Yes, he imposed colonial rule on indigenous peoples and curbed democratic dissent in Scotland. In response, the current Viscount Melville criticised the wording.
The original plaque, 1823
Flicker
Prof Desmarest argued the monument was Imperial, part of a general movement from 1800 to honour heroes of Britain's empire. This might have been perfectly appropriate at the time, but no longer. I, Hels, wouldn’t destroy the beautiful square but I would totally rewrite the plaque with careful historical accuracy.
Prof Desmarest argued the monument was Imperial, part of a general movement from 1800 to honour heroes of Britain's empire. This might have been perfectly appropriate at the time, but no longer. I, Hels, wouldn’t destroy the beautiful square but I would totally rewrite the plaque with careful historical accuracy.
The new plaque, BBC
24 comments:
Another really interesting post about a man I have never heard of till now, thank you do enjoy reading about things new to me
The transformation of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, from a celebrated political figure to a controversial one is a fascinating journey through history. Initially, Dundas was lauded for his contributions to the Royal Navy and his political influence under Prime Minister William Pitt. However, his legacy took a darker turn due to his role in delaying the abolition of the British slave trade.
Hello, Helen! I have got a friend in Scotland. So It's interesting to read about Edinburgh.
I agree with Jo-Anne. This was another interesting post. And I'm not sure about all the revisionist rewrites, but on the other hand, there is so much inaccurate history out there from days long gone it should be rewritten to tell the truth. Have a super weekend. And happy new year to you too Hels.
Henry Dundas moved from hero to anti-hero like many other leaders. E.g Mussolini who was a brilliant orator who united a divided country, supported urgently needed public works etc.. until he became a dangerous dictator.
I think the explanatory plaque is the right thing, however, I am not a descendant of an African slave and if I was, I may have a very different attitude to the statue.
Jo-Anne
I did a lot of history at uni and have read many history journals since then, but there is no way I would know every leader either. I did know Viscount Melville Henry Dundas as it happens, but I had no idea that Palmer and the committee reiterated calls for a new plaque or a new monument altogether! Now we do :)
roentare
true that! Dundas was famous for the expansion of colonial rule in India and the war against revolutionary France. And he is still remembered for the expansion of British trading empires in the West Indies.
Perhaps the very people who were proud of British colonial expansion were not too worried about exploiting black slaves :(
I am not sure about intentionally revisionist rewrites, but I do know that every historian and every historical reader has his or her unique ideas about a leader and political supporters. Only much later, when new evidence is revealed, _might_ people go back to the original data. Probably not.
Architect William Burn, a sympathetic to Dundas' politics, was engaged and the square owners agreed to the scheme in 1819. I wonder if people these days worry about mistakes made 200+ years ago.
Student
That has been well experienced over the centuries. Men (and women?) in important roles have changed their political views and leadership behaviours as they need to control their nations more completely. Until Mussolini took total power, he was thrown in prison every time he offended his opposition - in 1903, 1909, 1910 and 1910 etc.
Andrew
I wonder if the monument really was paid for by members of the Royal Navy. It made sense that since Dundas brought in vital naval reforms, and the sailors would have been grateful.
But it also meant that the City Council would have reluctantly pulled down the monument, spitting in the face of the navy men who heroically served their nation.
Irina
I lived for a couple of years in the UK, but lived and worked mainly in the southern half of England. I did an excellent tour of Edinburgh and Glasgow at one stage and loved it, but I have no memory of the Melville Monument.
Helen, this has nothing to do with slavery, but look at the History Company.
"So what was Dundas like as a person? He married Elizabeth Rannie (at 14) for her £10,000 fortune which he then lost in the failed Ayr Bank. His long absences in London probably led to her affair with an army officer whom she later married. Vengeance was harsh from the divorce in 1778 – Dundas, as was the law then, acquired her wealth, goods and chattels. These included their four children. She never saw them again and she lived until the age of 97.
James Boswell described him as a “coarse, unfettered, unfanciful dog” when Dundas was appointed Lord Advocate.
https://historycompany.co.uk/2014/08/02/henry-dundas-lofty-hero-or-lowlife-crook/
Deb
depending on whose version you read, Dundas was a brutal husband who never allowed his teenage wife to see her own children. Or Elizabeth was a careless teenage mother who dumped all the babies on her ex-husband. In either case, I have not heard of his disastrous first marriage being a reason for people not trusting him.
So many respected figures prove to have feet of clay on closer inspection It's not surprising - there has never yet been a faultless human being, though some are more reprehensible than others!
This is part of the current academic zeitgeist of delegitimising any and all aspects of "Western" history as basically corruption & evil.
The purpose is not to understand the past by putting the decision-makers into their historical context, but merely to weaponise it for our present fashionable political purposes. It's easy for us to come to the right decision because we are far removed from the exigencies of Henry Dundas's day. We don't need or expect to get any insights into his moral and political environment etc. No nuance is permitted. No sense of perspective. All his virtues and accomplishments are qualified by the singular moral issue of our time.
The problem is that when you start denouncing people for failing to meet the moral standards of us today, it is hard to know where to stop. What about everyone in Scotland in Dundas's day. They didn't write to their local MPs enough? They didn't complain enough... Should every house have a plaque too for not doing enough? And if not, why not?
They all lined the pockets of slave traders, along with the growers of sugar, coffee, tea, chocolate and so on, because they bought the products. There had to be a demand for the said commodities, or they would not have been produced.
For any sense of perspective, the original slave traders were African. For centuries before Europeans even arrived. Morality comes from our human experience and education. We can't expect people 200 years ago to regard antisemitism the way we do. And yet, that's eaxctly what we do.
The problem is that serious academic study of British empire at any elite university is practically impossible now. It cannot be done. There is a single acceptable orthodoxy for our times irrespective of any scholarly work.
This subject really annoys me. And I think we're gone overboard.
Liam
P.S. Come to my blog. I haven't seen you in ages!
I remember a few years ago when they pulled down the statue of the Bristol Edward Colston who was a slave-trader and wondered about the rewriting of history then. Judging the past from the present will make lots of problems in truth seeking.
jabblog
true that... there has never been a faultless human being. And mostly it is not our business if a person steals or beats his dogs. But if a person is lauded with being a fine leader and role model for the entire community, I think it IS our business.
History books, gallery paintings, public monuments and guided tours celebrate our earlier leaders at a time when a minority of the population might have been suffering terribly. eg Robert Mugabe's early career in politics was spent conducting a guerilla war against Rhodesia's apartheid government. Only later did Mugabe's rule look corrupt and violently despotic, interested in preserving his own power.
Liam
views and behaviours do indeed change over time, forwards and backwards. But criticising earlier generations for failing to meet the correct moral standards as far as we know them is not wrong. Au contraire, humanity have learned nothing if we accept that wife beaters and child abusers knew no better in the 18th century and were therefore not wrong.
An example was a Catholic priest then bishop in Australia who was charged with child sexual abuse offences over the years, spending a long time in gaol. Later raised to Cardinal, the Australian joined the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He took part in conclaves that elected the Pope in 2005 and in 2013. And he was selected by a later Pope as a member of the top Council of Cardinals!
Just learn about a new person.
thelma
Colston did indeed make a HUGE fortune from the slave trade, when his Company transported c1000,000 African slaves to the Americas. But later Colston used his wealth to become a Member of Parliament, and financially supported essential hospitals, schools, workhouses and churches in Bristol.
By the 19th century, he was seen as a warm philanthropist and not as a brutal slave trader. So who made the decision to take down his statue of honour a couple of years ago?
peppy
I have enough trouble remembering the names of all my first cousins and their spouses *sigh sadly*. But history blogs are fantastic for helping with little remembered names from high school classes. However I must admit I did not remember Thelma's important man, Edward Colston.
Seems he did what was correct in his day, or what was expected and accepted but today it's a different matter as most of us have different thinking to back then. The Pitts are related to one of my cousins.
Margaret
I wish I was related to a prime minister... at least if he was a decent leader :)
There was always a clear difference between what was "accepted", at least by the upper classes, and what was known to be "lawful" for ordinary citizens. eg medieval adultery was a serious crime at a time when marriage was sacred, indissoluble and monogamous. Yet kings and noble men could root their way across Europe without consequences.
Post a Comment