Suchergebnisse

Introduction signed by R.N. Dundas. ; Includes letters by Henry Dundas and chapters by C.H.K. Marten and Oliver Lyttelton. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article examines newly unearthed archival evidence that challenges the notion from activists, pressure groups, and some academics that Henry Dundas, Scotland's most powerful politician in the late eighteenth century, is to blame for Britain's failure to achieve abolition of the slave trade sooner than 1807. This evidence supports the argument that Dundas was genuinely attempting to chart a path by which Britain could abolish the slave trade, albeit gradually, starting with an immediate end to slave trading with foreign colonies. The pathway of gradual abolition therefore meant antislavery was ultimately an anti-slavery strategy. In addition, these recent debates surrounding Henry Dundas and abolition of Britain's slave trade highlight a further point. There is a pressing need for public bodies to exercise caution and corroborate ideas raised in social media campaigns before making rash and ill-considered decisions to permanently change built heritage, preferably with the assistance of impartial and experienced historians who can be trusted to avoid selectively using evidence to manipulate or distort the past. The potential for generating unending controversy and dissatisfaction over government bodies declaring judgment against the past is concerning, and poses risks of increased community division.

Impeachments have long since ceased to be a feature of British politics. Much scholarly attention has been given to past impeachments, particularly the unsuccessful prosecution of Warren Hastings. Little consideration, however, has been given to the last such case, the impeachment of Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, from 1805 to 1807. The Melville scandal held the interest of the country until the middle of 1806, when it was diverted by naval battles. Although generally neglected by historians of the period, the Melville affair was a significant event in the course of then‐contemporary British politics, and of wider society. Examination of the reactions to the attempted impeachment can illuminate a number of developing themes and concerns within both elite circles and in the wider political nation. These include dislike of patronage and the Pittite 'system', anti‐Scottish bias, and advocacy of financial and parliamentary reform. Moreover, it helped to revive the radical movement both in parliament and out of doors. While the affair may not have been as significant as the later Mrs Clarke and Queen Caroline scandals, the reactions to it were generally comparable. In fact, reactions to the attempted impeachment presaged reactions to these later events. The issues and passions stirred forth by the proceedings will be shown to have significantly contributed to the revival of a dynamic national political atmosphere which itself enabled and fuelled those reactions.

Since the summer of 2020 debate concerning the commemoration of one of Scotland's leading eighteenth century politicians has galvanised opinions. The heart of the controversy surrounds the wording on a new heritage marker erected in 2021 at the statue of Henry Dundas (later Viscount Melville) in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh. This article does not address the complex question of whether or not Dundas was an abolitionist, but only if he can be held accountable for a delay to abolition of the British slave trade as claimed on the plaque. My overarching argument is that Sir Geoff Palmer, the key figure behind the new plaque's wording, has wrongly conflated arguments about whether or not Dundas was an abolitionist with assertions that he delayed abolition of Britain's slave trade. Through identifying the flaws in his approach to the past, I highlight the problems that arise when individuals and institutions discount, marginalise and demean professional and longstanding historical expertise. Indeed, the heritage sector is grossly undermined by the lack of rigorous scrutiny for plaques and memorials erected to serve pressure group politics. Although this controversy is about one monument in one city, it has wider ramifications for how we remember and engage with the past.

How far do individuals determine events and how much agency do they have? In March 2021, Edinburgh City Council approved plans to install a new plaque on the Melville monument in Edinburgh, Scotland, part of which refers to 'the more than half-a-million Africans whose enslavement was a consequence of Henry Dundas's actions'. These words on the plaque serve to hold Dundas (later Lord Melville) solely accountable for the consequences of a parliamentary vote taken in the House of Commons in 1792 on the gradual delay of the British slave trade. This article interrogates the historical controversy surrounding Henry Dundas's role in abolition of the British slave trade with a focus on two main areas. First, it contradicts claims that historians unequivocally agree that Dundas delayed abolition. Second, it explores arguments that Dundas's mobilisation of Scottish votes and oratorical skills ensured continuation of the slave trade. The article argues that historical realities were much more nuanced and complex in the slave trade abolition debates than a focus on the role and significance of one politician suggests. Edinburgh City Council therefore have the urgent moral duty to remove the plaque. Otherwise, the city faces the grave charge and international opprobrium of falsifying history on a public monument.

Kupferstich beschnitten, aufgeklebt auf weissem Papier, mit dünnem schwarzem Rand, darunter eine handschriftliche, umrahmte Annotation. Dargestellt ist der schottische Anwalt und Politiker Henry Dundas, 1. Viscount Melville im Profil.

Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Brit. 480 m-4#Beibd.2