Dundas kept saying ‘now is not the time’ to end slavery

Michael Fry notes that he was a “genuine opponent of the slave trade”. However, what Dundas claimed in terms of being opposed to the slave trade was not ultimately evidenced by his actions.

When William Wilberforce tabled his abolition bill in 1792, Dundas as Home Secretary was responsible for tabling an amendment that it be “gradually abolished”. Dundas had proposed fixing an end-date for the abolition process as 1st January 1800, which was subsequently amended to 1796.

READ MORE: Michael Fry: Here’s the real truth on Henry Dundas and whether he ‘prolonged’ slavery

Incidentally, in the Lords the Duke of Clarence, the future King William IV, decided to make his maiden speech on this subject in support of the trade. The Lords accepted Dundas’s amendment.

It could be argued, as Michael Fry does, that this was a ploy by Dundas, given the strength of the pro-slavery West Indian Lobby in Parliament, to actually get the bill passed, with the amended motion passed by 230 to 85.

However, this is rather contradicted by the fact that when in 1796 Wilberforce again put his case to the legislature, introducing another bill for the abolition of the trade from 1st January 1797, Dundas, by now Secretary of State of War, agreed the trade was evil but that it was wrong to abolish it at that time. He argued that with Britain currently engaged in a Caribbean war, it was not the time for added disruption in the West Indies.

Speaking in the debate, Dundas thought the principle of the bill to be just. He noted that the African slave trade was contrary to justice and humanity, and that it ought to be abolished, but he had no hesitation in saying that it was not possible for parliament to give effect to the bill at the present moment.

The bill was narrowly lost by 70 votes to 74 – largely, Wilberforce believed, due to the absenteeism of some abolitionists. It appears “now is not the time” had some resonance, even then!

The abolition of the slave trade, in part due to the actions of Henry Dundas, was ultimately delayed until 1807, a delay which it is reckoned saw an additional 600,000 men, women and children transported into slavery.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

I READ with interest Michael Fry’s column. After all the recent sound and fury about the now notorious Dundas statue and its future, it was refreshing to read the analysis of someone who is not only historically trained but has written the most recent biography of the man itself.

That book is thoroughly researched, fully referenced and published by Scotland’s most reputable academic press. The opinions of Dundas of journalists, activists and special pleaders have filled the pages of the press over the last week or so, but hardly one of them can claim the authority of a historian who has actually examined the primary evidence.

I for one found Fry’s conclusions much more convincing than all the siren voices put together. Also intriguing were the short revelations about the machinations of Mr McBride et al and how, after years of disputatious debate, they and an unidentified Edinburgh University scholar came up with a form of words for the revised plaque in short order.

It would not be fanciful to suggest that in future years university teachers will take their students to the statue to read the new plaque to confirm to them the malign and erroneous effects of the ignorance of history by politicians and advocates for ‎a cause.

Professor Emeritus Sir Tom Devine
The University of Edinburgh

HAVING read articles on Dundas as well as extracts from his biography, contrary to Michael Fry’s interpretation the real truth of his effect on slavery can be summed up by “now is not the time”, which maintained the status quo. He said he was against slavery but did little to hasten its end! While the impact of “British” or white on African slavery was the focus, little was done to resolve other forms of the same scourge not racially inspired, the issues of which remain to this day. Human beings are not chattels to be abused and under-valued to suit the interests of the few.

Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire

MICHAEL Fry omits a few salient facts from his eulogy to Henry Dundas. Dundas held his power in an evil Tory cabal thanks to voting rights being restricted to 4,500 land owners out of a total Scottish population of 1.6 million. Campaigns for a fairer franchise were thwarted by Fry’s Mr Fixit by the passing of the Treason Act and the Seditious Meetings Act in 1795. The former widened the definition of sedition to include spoken and written words, and public assemblies were banned by the latter. Campaigners for the right to vote were found guilty of sedition and transported to Botany Bay for up to 14 years.

Dundas was so reviled that effigies of him were burned in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Perth and in several northern villages. Handbills were also circulated under the slogan “BURN THE VILLAIN DUNDAS.

This villain does not deserve to be commemorated by a statue in our capital city and certainly not by one that dominates the landscape.

Colin Darroch
Kinross