The Bank of England has been accused of taking part in a ‘bonfire of the vanities’ after removing portraits of governors linked to the slave trade despite the government’s ‘retain and explain’ guidance.
Eight oil paintings and two busts were recently transferred to a private area following last June’s review into former Bank leaders’ links to slavery, which was announced last summer amid the Black Lives Matter protests.
Today a spokesman for the Department of Culture made clear it opposed the decision, saying: ‘The Government does not support the removal of historic objects.’
Senior bank officials Sir James Bateman, who acted for the Royal African Company; and Robert Bristow, a slave trader and owner
Bank governor Andrew Bailey last June his intention to remove statues of slavers following a review
Robert Poll, the founder of the Save Our Statues campaign, told the Telegraph: ‘The Bank should not be spending its time pointlessly sitting in judgment of the past, or be party to the current vogue for reducing history through the single lens of slavery.’
He accused Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey taking part in a ‘latter-day Bonfire of the Vanities’
The seven figures include colonial trader Sir Gilbert Heathcote and slave traders Sir Robert Clayton, and Robert Bristow.
Sir James Bateman acted for the Royal African Company – the foremost slave trading enterprise of the time – while William Manning and John Pearse held investments in plantations.
The seventh figure is William Dawsonne, director of the bank from 1698 to 1719.
A spokesman for the Bank of England said: ‘In June 2020, the Bank announced a review of its collection of images of former governors and directors, to ensure none with known involvement of the slave trade remain on display anywhere in the [Bank].’
John Pearse, who had investments in slave plantations; and colonial trader Sir Gilbert Heathcote
William Manning, who was involved in the Caribbean slave economy; and Sir Robert Clayton, a member of the Court of Assistants to the Royal African Company
Last year the portraits of 11 other senior figures were removed by the Bank as it apologised for their ‘inexcusable’ role in ‘an unacceptable part of English history’. The Bank noted that it was never directly involved in slave trading or owning.
The former chiefs owned a total of 5,000 slaves, from Daniel Giles in 1795 who was the co-mortgagee of estates in Grenada to Benjamin Buck Greene in 1873 who was a plantation manager in St Kitts.
Others were Jeremiah Harman in 1816 who had 409 slaves and three estates in St Kitts; John Palmer in 1830 with 238 slaves and two estates in Grenada; and Timothy Curtis in 1837 who had 206 slaves and an estate in St Vincent.
John Reid in 1839 had 3,112 slaves and 17 estates in Jamaica, the Virgin Islands and other areas; Thomson Hankey Jnr in 1851 who owned 534 slaves and four estates in Grenada; and West Indian merchant Sheffield Neave in 1857.
The final two former governors were Alfred Latham in 1861 who owned 402 slaves, three estates in Jamaica, Nevis and Tobago; while Bonamy Dobree in 1859 had 19 slaves and two estates in British Guiana.
The Bank acknowledged its role in the kidnapping and transportation of thousands of people for the first time, lamenting the ‘unacceptable part of English history’ and saying it will remove images of governors and directors involved in the ‘inexcusable’ trade.
On Saturday it emerged that a statue of Scottish inventor James Watt in Birmingham will be reinstalled with a plaque explaining his ‘dark side’ and links to slavery.
The steam engine pioneer, who died in 1819, was a key figure in the Industrial Revolution and was honoured with a gilded statue with colleagues Matthew Boulton and William Murdoch, known as the ‘golden boys’.
Even though the monument is in storage, Birmingham City Council identified it as a ‘possible risk’ in a statue review amid the Black Lives Matter protests.
The engineer, who developed the idea of horsepower and lends his name to the unit of power, had family connections to the slave trade.
The council has decided to reinstate the statue in the city centre with the addition of an explanatory plaque, reported The Telegraph.
The information on the plaque will explain the ‘dark side to the story of the Watt family’.
In the dossier of ‘at risk’ statues by the council, it states: ‘Watt’s family and Watt himself were not only complicit in the slave trade – they participated directly and benefited extensively from the profits that slavery generated.
‘His father paid for Watt’s education; an element of his father’s income was from colonial trade.’