It was with dismay that Coco read of the act by some the pulling down and littering of the harbour in Bristol with the statue of Edward Colston. Coco cannot support or in any way endorse such actions or the removal of statues to such men in this way, however neither does Coco endorse slavery in any of its forms whether ancient or modern.

It would seem that those who act in this way, and many who do not but nevertheless wish for the removal of the memory of such, forget a number of pertinent matters. The first would be that although we participated in the slave trade, it was the British who led the movement for its abolition and the abolition of slavery itself and when the battle had been won in the Empire enforced that position in so far as we were able throughout the world. This was accomplished over many years and nearly two hundred years ago. 2000AD is a small booklet which may be found of interest in which the matter of the abolition of slavery and its trade is mentioned on pages 17-19.

Secondly, we also forget that it was not the slave traders who enslaved the Africans who were its unfortunate victims but Africans themselves who were quite happy to sell the enslaved to the traders. If Colston, Guy, Cass and Milligan are guilty in this matter then so too are the people of West Africa. Of course some would like to suggest that there is a further implication here, that if Colston et al are guilty then we today are also and should apologise as a nation for taking part in this trade. Do the same people then also ask the nations of West Africa to apologise for the provisioning of the trade?

Have they who demand an apology forgotten that we did more than apologise for the slave trade and our part in it, we abolished them both, and repented of our evil actions two hundred years ago? Must we do so again?

Of course, and Coco would hope that it goes without his needing to say it, that we did not enslave the slaves does not justify our participation in the trade. Indeed it may be that our participation in the trade fuelled the marketplace of enslavement that already existed.

In the booklet there is a reference to the establishment of the colony of Sierra Leone. You will notice that finance was provided by the campaigners for the abolitions. Is this not a proper response to the evils of slavery?

So finally, Coco would suggest that those who campaign in this way need to consider what the slave traders did with their wealth. Often it was used in charitable works in our own land. Guy established a hospital. Colston provided many endowments, schools and alms houses for the city of Bristol. If these endowments are tainted by slavery is not the right thing to do but to return the funds and all profits and returns made out them with interest to Guy’s and Colston’s estates? And should not all those who have benefited from such endowments and institutions not also return the value of the benefit they have received?

To remove a statue is mere symbolism, to return the funds is costly but proves the sincerity of the remonstrator, just as the establishment of Sierra Leone did when this nation acted for the benefit of slaves everywhere. Will you then as mayors of Bristol and London consider this and ensure that if a statue is removed, so too appropriate returns are made to the estates’ of the now long-deceased individuals?

Edited by Coco for publication from the original delivered to:
S Khan Esq, Mayor of London, City Hall. The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA
M Rees Esq, Mayor of Bristol, City Hall, PO Box 3399, Bristol City Council BS3 9FS