Introduction

In 1775, Henry Dundas became Lord Advocate, chief adviser to the British Government on Scottish legal affairs.  This marked his transition from law to politics.  He had a close friendship with the Prime Minister, William Pitt, and held various prominent positions such as Secretary at War and First Lord of the Admiralty. This gave him considerable power and influence.

The Abolition Bill - a draft law to end British involvement in the slave trade - was on the British political agenda by the time Dundas became Lord Advocate. However, getting this law through Parliament would be no simple matter. Being an MP was an unsalaried position – so most MPs were rich men, and many owned plantations in the West Indies or benefited from the slave trade economically.

William Wilberforce put forward an Abolition Bill in 1789 but was fiercely opposed by those making fortunes from the trade. In 1791, MPs voted by 163 to 22 against the Bill. It was passed by the House of Commons in 1792, but with an amendment saying that the abolition should be ‘gradual’. This amendment was introduced by Henry Dundas. The Bill did not get through the House of Lords until 1806.

Dundas opposed immediate Abolition, as he believed that this would simply steer profits to other European nations, or force the trade underground. He proposed a date for Abolition eight years in the future, which was amended by other MPs to four. 

Hero or Villain?

The question remains to this day: did Dundas save the Abolition Bill, with an amendment that made it acceptable to MPs who had previously opposed it so fiercely? Or did his addition of the word ‘gradual’ damage the cause and slow down the pace of change?

In the next section, you'll be introduced to opposing perspectives regarding Dundas. 

Arguments in Support of Dundas

Political Pragmatism

Dundas recognised that immediate Abolition would create a void that other countries would rush to fill.  It would also drive the slave trade underground - planters would begin smuggling slaves, and this would be against the humanitarian goals of the abolitionists. Instead, he proposed to end hereditary slavery – children of slaves would be educated and later freed from slavery after a period of service. 

Gradual vs. Radical Change

While Dundas actively fought for the abolition of the slave trade, he was aware of its economic importance.  He proposal of a slower pace of change may have helped avoid outrage over the loss of livelihoods, and possibly the defeat of the abolitionist movement.  

External Reasons for the Delay

Delay to the end of the slave trade wasn’t all down to Dundas. There were many other factors:

1. Limitations within British democracy: the King had the ultimate power, and King George III was against abolition. 
2. The powerful Duke of Clarence encouraged MPs not to support the Bill, and a man of his importance would have almost certainly caused the abolitionists to lose support.
3. The West Indies had their own constitution and so it was unclear if Britain could impose a change on them.
4. War against France: it was argued Britain could not afford to lose the millions of pounds a year brought in by the trade. Ending the trade gradually would still allow Britain to benefit economically and help fund the war effort.

Arguments in Opposition to Dundas

Political Motives

In his amendment, Dundas failed to mention a date or even a timeframe for Britain to end its involvement in the slave trade. Some have argued that his wording is deliberately vague - this does not suggest a man with the urgency to end slave trade, but perhaps a man seeking to gain political power and moral high ground among his colleagues.  

Abolitionist MPs did not see Dundas as one of them. Charles James Fox described him as the man “who took a lead in constantly opposing our attempts at a total and immediate Abolition” even though he knew the trade “to be adverse to policy, humanity, and justice”.

Dundas’ Character 

As the majority of the British population were against the slave trade, it has been suggested that Dundas supported its abolition in order to improve his own standing.  This is implied by his many nicknames, not given fondly, such as “the uncrowned King of Scotland”, “the Great Tyrant” and “King Harry the Ninth”.  The famous poet Robert Burns called Dundas “slee”, meaning crafty. James Boswell, a lawyer who knew Dundas well from the courts, said he was a “coarse, unfettered, unfanciful dog.” These descriptions characterise a man of questionable morals.  

The Declining Economic Importance of the Slave Trade

With the Industrial Revolution in progress, Dundas was aware that Britain did not depend as heavily on the slave trade in the 1790s as it had in previous decades.  Despite this, he made no effort to hasten the end of slavery.  In fact, in the 1790s, as Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, Dundas prioritised seizing France’s Caribbean slaveholding empire with the view of “enlarging our national wealth and security”. His central aim was to gain control of the French colony of Saint Domingue, the most profitable slaveholding colony of the age. Between 1793 and 1798, across the Caribbean, 40,000 British troops, the majority of them sent under Dundas, died or were incapacitated attempting to expand the frontiers of British control. These actions perhaps point to a profiteer above all else.

What was the verdict on the Henry Dundas statue?

At present, the Dundas statue remains in Edinburgh, with a new plaque:

Note: If you want to read more about Henry Dundas and the debate over his legacy, you may wish to download the PDF linked at the top of the post - a piece of research commissioned by Dundas's descendants.  You may also wish to read the references below: 

References

1. Melville Monument
2. UK Parliament on slave trade abolition
3. The Scotsman newspaper article on redress for slavery 
4. Scottish Legal News: Henry Dundas, Lofty Hero or Lowlife Crook?
   

<<To return to the Prompt and complete the Activity for Step 2, click here.

<<To return to the Challenge Steps page, click here. 

>> Proceed to Step 3