STATEMENT OF THE MELVILLE MONUMENT COMMITTEE
Removal of the Melville Monument plaque
Edinburgh, 19 Sept 2023 (UPDATED): The plaque on the Melville Monument, which distorted and misrepresented the legacy of Henry Dundas, has finally been removed. A city planning committee approved the removal earlier this year.
The Melville Monument Committee, founded by Henry Dundas descendent Viscount Bobby Melville, said:
“The removal of the plaque is an historic development and momentous occasion in a 5-year saga. The plaque represented a grotesquely inaccurate version of history that had no place on the monument or in a public square.”
The text on the plaque was written by non-historians at the height of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2020 and was widely denounced by leading historians as a misrepresentation of history. It claimed that Henry Dundas delayed abolition of the slave trade and caused over half a million Africans to be enslaved.
“The plaque turned the facts upside down,” said Viscount Melville. “Henry Dundas opposed slavery his entire life. When he developed a plan to abolish slavery and the slave trade together, hardline abolitionists refused to support him, but later regretted this. By the 1820’s they were literally saying ‘Henry Dundas was right all along.’
New evidence continues to be uncovered that exonerates Henry Dundas, proving his abolitionist position. The most recent peer-reviewed article, from Professor Angela McCarthy, reveals that behind the scenes, key abolitionists supported Henry Dundas’s plan for abolition and wanted to help him. Professor McCarthy also discovered that slave owners opposed Dundas’s plan for abolition just as much as they opposed William Wilberforce’s plan.
“That alone should settle the controversy,” said Viscount Melville. “The newly discovered evidence proves that Sir Geoff Palmer and others misinterpreted the historical evidence. This should help to reassure the public that removal of a plaque littered with errors was the right thing to do”.
Edinburgh City Council has issued a statement saying removal of the plaque required the City’s permission. Viscount Melville says the City is wrong.
“We had all the necessary permits, and ensured that the owners of St Andrew Square, who have ultimate authority, had no objection. We acted completely within the law.”
“It is the height of hypocrisy for the City to object to removal of the plaque. The City should be concerned about its own unlawful acts. It had no authority to install the plaque without consent of the owners in the first place, and continues to defy an order to remove the large signs about the plaque in St. Andrew Square. It is in no position to object to the removal of the plaque, which we have done in complete compliance with our legal obligations.”
CONTACT: Bobby Melville, bobbymelville1@gmail.com / WhatsApp: +44 7539 380378
BACKGROUND:
The City claimed in June 2020 that it had made “positive engagement” with the owners of St. Andrew Square when it sought approval of the plaque.
When we made a Freedom of Information request for proof of communication with the owners, they provided nothing. They had no record of communication with the owners whatsoever. They did not even have proof that they had given notice to the owners.
The City has treated the true owners of the monument – who are the proprietors of the buildings that surround the square – as irrelevant, which was improper. It is not the city’s statue. They are only the caretakers. The Square belongs to the owners. The owners, who are the proprietors of the buildings that surround the Square, have the ultimate say.
We sent three registered letters to all owners, and in some cases sent letters to their legal counsel. Not one of them objected to us removing the plaque. The owners made it clear they had no objection to removal of the plaque.
The Melville Monument Committee obtained a copy of the sub-lease concerning St. Andrew Square, and has additional concerns about the City breaching that lease.
DETAILS OF THE CITY’S BREACHES OF THE LEASE ARE AS FOLLOWS;
1. Para. 15.1 – any notice, request, consent or approval must be in writing. 15.3 – any notice to the Landlords must be by Recorded Delivery Post. CEC breached this provision by failing to provide notice in writing of its intention to install the plaque.
2. Part 4, para 6.2, requires CEC to remove all signs that bear the name of CEC or other occupiers, and to repair any damage caused by such signs, upon expiry of the lease. This indicates that the parties contemplated that temporary signage would be installed, and it was not the prerogative of CEC to alter the Monument permanently. Also … there are separate limitations on signage (noted below).
3. Part 4, para 8.3 – All alterations by CEC to the Premises apart from the “the Works” (set out in the attached Planning application documents) require 70% majority approval of Landlords. CEC breached this provision.
4. Part 4, para 9 – CEC may not, without consent of the Landlords, place, attach, affix or exhibit any flag signboard, inscription, placard or sign on the Premises, except signage indicating opening hours, regulations, or required by statute. CEC continues breach this provision every day that the large signs standing in the Square remain in place.
5. Part 4, para 14.7 – CEC must provide Landlords with a certified true copy of all notices, permissions, orders or proposals for a notice or order issued to CEC by or on behalf of any Government Department or local or public authority or statutory body including in this context the Planning Acts. CEC can provide no proof of notice or communication, and breached this provision.
6. Part 4 – para 15 – CEC must obtain the Landlords’ consent for any application for permission from any Planning Authority, and must give notice of any grant or refusal of such permissions “immediately upon receipt.” CEC can provide no proof of notice or communication, and breached this provision.
7. Part 5, para 1.4 – any request for consent or approval under the lease must be sent to each Landlord in writing by Special or Recorded Delivery post as far in advance as reasonably possible an in any event at least 28 days prior to the date such consent or approval is required. CEC breached this provision twice – once at the application stage, and again in 2021 when CEC proceeded with the physical installation of the plaque without consent or approval of the Landlords. CEC can provide no proof of notice or communication, and breached this provision.
OBSERVATIONS
I. Lawful removal
-
Removal of the plaque is in complete compliance with the permits and planning approvals from the Edinburgh City council.
-
A planning committee of city councillors approved removal, after staff decided it was a political decision that should be made by councillors and referred it to them.
-
The removal was conducted in complete accordance with the lawful permits issued by the Edinburgh City Council.
II. Consent
-
After a committee of city councillors approved the application for removal of the plaque, we, the Melville Monument Committee contacted the owners three times, including through their legal counsel, by registered letter, to give them every opportunity to express opposition to removal. The only responses were from owners who refrained from exercising authority, and did not oppose removal.
-
We did everything possible to act with the knowledge and consent of the owners, and far more than the city council ever did.
-
The owners made it clear that they did not wish to stand in the way of the removal of the plaque.
III. Council’s unlawful acts
-
The Edinburgh City council claimed to have ‘positive engagement’ with the owners before it installed the plaque, but when we made an FOI request for proof of that ‘positive engagement’ the council provided nothing. It could not even prove that it gave notice to the owners. The City treated the owners as irrelevant, which was unlawful. The owners had a right to know what the city intended to do with the monument.
-
The Edinburgh City council has proceeded contrary to law in four ways:
a. It erected the plaque without giving proper notice to the owners, which was unlawful.
b. It erected the large signs in the square without planning approval, which was unlawful.
c. When we obtained an order for the city to remove the large signs, the city defied the order. To this day the city continues to allow the signs to stand in the square, contrary to its own order.
d. The city also breached the terms of the lease for St Andrew Square, by erecting signs that are specifically prohibited under the lease with the owners, which is also contrary to law.
CONCLUSION:
CEC has failed to act in good faith with regard to the installation of the plaque and signs in St Andrew Square by trampling on the legal rights of the owners. It is in no position to criticize the Melville Monument Committee, which satisfied its legal obligations under the city’s approval process, and by ensuring that the owners of St Andrew Square had no objection to the removal of the plaque