A prominent Conservative councillor has appeared to advocate vandalism and theft as a row over a second plaque proposed for the controversial statue of Edward Colston intensified.
Cllr Richard Eddy said someone taking the law into the own hands and ‘unilaterally removing’ the plaque, which recognises Colston’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, ‘might be justified’.
The plaque is being proposed by the city council’s City Design Group, and a planning application to the council’s own planners has been submitted, because the statue of Edward Colston is a listed monument.
If given planning permission, the plaque will be added to the side of the statue’s plinth, and add to the original plaque on the front, placed there when the statue was unveiled in 1895.
While the original 1895 plaque makes no mention of Colston’s role as a prominent slave trader, the second plaque does, and even calls into question the nature of the philanthropy which has meant he is still remembered across Bristol almost 300 years after his death.
It is the wording of the second plaque that has infuriated Cllr Eddy.
He labelled it ‘revisionist’ and ‘historically-illiterate’.
“This pathetic bid to mount a secondary revisionist plaque on Colston's Statue is historically-illiterate and a further stunt to try to reinvent Bristol's history,” he said.
“If it goes through, it will be a further slap-in-the-face for true Bristolians and our city's history delivered by ignorant, left-wing incomers,” he added.
The second plaque idea was given the go-ahead in principle by Bristol City Council at the start of 2018, after an alternative plaque describing Colston’s role in the slave trade was placed unofficially on the plinth of the statue by campaigners last year.
That was the latest in a long series of ‘alterations’ made to the Colston statue, in The Centre of Bristol near the Cenotaph, by campaigners calling for the celebration of Colston in Bristol to be revised.
In recent months and years, the statue has had white paint daubed on its face, shackles and chains attached to it, a yarn-bombed ball and chain attached to its leg and the alternative plaque.
The regular attacks on the statue were cited by council chiefs as part of the reason why they propose a second plaque.
But Cllr Eddy appeared to advocate or support theft or vandalism against that official second plaque. He said he wanted to suggest that any plan to ‘unilaterally remove it might be justified’.
He added: "I have never been a believer in taking the law into one's own hands. However, if this partisan and nauseous plaque is approved, I can not find it in my heart to condemn anyone who damages or removes it,” he added.
Cllr Eddy sparked controversy back in 2001 for adopting a golliwog as a mascot - something which saw him forced to resign as the Tories’ deputy council leader.
More recently, the Conservative councillor for Bishopsworth said he would boycott the Colston Hall in protest at the Bristol Music Trust decision to rename it and drop the Colston name when it reopens in 2020.
The wording of the second plaque was arrived at after a project led by historians, including Prof Madge Dresser, from the University of the West of England, in conjunction with the children of Colston Primary School, which has decided to rename itself Cotham Gardens from this September.
Read More
Edward Colston and Bristol's slave trade
A report by the City Design Group to council planners admitted part of the reason for the second plaque was to try to stop those anti-Colston campaigners from potentially damaging the statue in future protests.
“Given the attention around the statue and the strong, often opposing views about its presence in the city the concept of a new plaque needed careful consideration,” it said.
“The decision to add a new plaque was in part driven by the need to address the damage caused to the stone plinth by the “unauthorised” plaque.
However, the over-riding need is to provide a better historic context for the statue that explains some of the background to the man and his business interests so the Bristolians and visitors can view the statue with more understanding.
“There have been calls to remove the statue to a museum that can provide this historic context.
"The view of the council is that keeping the statue in the public realm with the additional context provided by a plaque encourages further debate about these important issues concerning Bristol’s heritage,” the report added.
The proposed plaque will read: “As a high official of the Royal African Company from 1680 to 1692, Edward Colston played an active role in the enslavement of over 84,000 Africans (including 12,000 children) of whom over 19,000 died en route to the Caribbean and America.
“Colston also invested in the Spanish slave trade and in slave-produced sugar. As Tory MP for Bristol (1710-1713), he defended the city’s ‘right’ to trade in enslaved Africans.
“Bristolians who did not subscribe to his religious and political beliefs were not permitted to benefit from his charities,” it added.
One of the local councillors in whose ward the Colston statue is located is Labour's Paul Smith.
He said he welcomed the plaque's addition to the statue, and questioned Cllr Eddy's view.
"I welcome the historical balance this plaque brings to the statue," he said.
"As the Post points out Richard has form on his sort of behaviour.
"I would love to know what Cllr Eddy's definition of a 'True Bristolian' is, as it appears to only refer to people he agrees with, if he can find any.
"As for promoting theft and vandalism in central Bristol, perhaps it's a good thing that he is boycotting the area," he added.
