British History (aspects of)

In the context of the deposition and drowning of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol, one can reflect on Britain’s relationship with its slaving past.  Which is important because the nation’s mercantile and financial history was built and is based on the banking, insurance and investment systems developed to support the slave trade and slave produce from the 1660s onwards  – later augmented to profit from exploitation in India and Asia.  Over a century later, in 1780, the humanitarian campaign began against shipping human beings like cargo or cattle, and then in the 1830s colonial slavery was eventually abolished (except in India).  At which point, Britain switched from being a leading slave nation to self-congratulatory emancipation.

Abolition happened to coincide with the 1834 destruction of the Houses of Parliament by fire.  As it was rebuilt in High Victorian Gothic by Sir Charles Barry, attention turned to interior decoration in form of mural paintings and sculptures.  This occupied years and years, although early on it was agreed to chose scenes from British history – plus, in some proposals, scenes from English literature.

These were many and various, and apart from the vast depictions of the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar that were eventually painted and are still in situ, many if not most of the suggestions did not progress further.  However, in 1847 there was a specific proposal for six scenes to decorate the central corridor, with three depicting antiquity and three illustrating modern subjects.  The contrast was between ancient Britain ‘sunk in ignorance, superstition and slavery’ and the Christian [sic] Britain  of the present, ‘instructing the savage, abolishing barbarous rites and liberating the slave.’  A good spread of self-congratulation that presumably also commended itself by not obviously depending on military conquest.

So the three ancient topics were to be:  Phoenicians in Cornwall; Druid sacrifice; Anglo-Saxon captives in Rome.  [I’m unclear as to why ancient Phoenicians represented ignorance, but the others were familiar subjects from then-prevailing history].  The three modern scenes were wonderfully illustrative of the then-prevailing view of Empire: Captain Cook in Tahiti, protesting against human sacrifice; the suppression of sati in India; the 'emancipation of Negro slaves' - all matters to applaud.  None of these subjects was actually commissioned for the Palace of Westminster.  But they do convey Britain’s erasure of its own barbaric practices in favour of a benign global mission. In a generation colonial enslavement had been transformed into liberation.

And a century further on, when the subject was revived in 1924-5, a new scheme illustrating the ‘Building of Britain’ was commissioned, which according to today’s account ‘brought together images important to the development of the Nation. These included the importance of naval defence, and of transporting expeditions overseas, both essential for an island race; the nobles who protested against oppression; the long struggle for religious freedom; the daring adventure to find the New World in the Elizabethan age; the start of English [sic] influence in India; and the union of Scotland and England in 1707.'

One of these stirring scenes was in fact Richard I departing on the first crusade, painted by Glyn Philpot.  Which doesn’t seem to fit the forgoing list but presumably still popularly represented the defence of Christianity. Another was the embassy to the Mughal court of Jahangir in 1614, painted by William Rothenstein.  It shows how ‘Sir Thomas Roe, envoy from King James I of England to the Mogul Emperor, succeeds by his courtesy and firmness at the Court of Ajmir in laying the foundation of British influence in India.’

No doubt in the 1920s the question of the Raj was important but problematic, especially in terms of possible pictorial representation.  This episode, of which I was previously ignorant, marks the beginning of the East India Company’s activities in India.  Not exactly a topic for celebration, but as ambassador Roe returned to London without a trade agreement, it perhaps seemed relatively neutral.