The consistory court hearing about the Tobias Rustat memorial continued on Thursday (03/02), in the Jesus college Chapel.

Students were still protesting outside the chapel in support of Jesus’ decision to petition the diocese of Ely, to have the memorial to an investor in the slave trade removed from the chapel.

They were holding posters such as “churches are made of people, not objects”.

The first witness called to testify was Jesus College’s architect Mr Paul Vonberg.

Justin Gau, representing the side of the opposition, asked Vonberg if he agreed that the memorial to investor in the slave trade Rustat was meant to be seen from a height. Justin Gau stated that moving the memorial from its current location to an exhibit in East House would mean it would not be possible to see it from a height again.

Vonberg disagreed with the necessity of the memorial being displayed from a height, since putting it at a height implied an attitude of reverence towards it.

“As an architect, I can say that if you put something high, you are asking people to revere it”, he stated.

Emeritus prof of history at Oxford Lawrence Goldman, speaking from the side of the opposition, asked if Vonberg agreed moving the memorial would transform it from a “work of art” to an “object of historical interest”, and that the move from a grade I listed building to East house would be “a significant depreciation of an object of high artistic value”.

Vonberg answered that he disagreed, asking instead if the petitioner found the works of art displayed in the British museum to be depreciated.

“I should think the Greeks think that way about the Elgin Marbles”, Goldman responded.

The hearing went on to consider whether moving the memorial would disrespect its funerary nature, given Tobias Rustat is buried in the vicinity of the memorial.

“You could define the place where he was buried in slightly broader terms. For instance, you could define it at Jesus College Cambridge”, the architect argued, a statement with which the opposition disagreed.

Alumni Andrew Sutton, opposed to the removal of the memorial, was then called to witness. The proposition reminded him that the presence of the memorial makes undergraduates, as well as the college’s master, uncomfortable. Was he not sensitive to that?

Andrew Sutton said that was “very sad”, but contextualising the memorial in situ was possible.

He said the attempts that had been made at contextualising the memorial had been detrimented by the “cloud of disinformation” that “still hangs” above any discussion of Rustat’s life.

“All would benefit from informed, quiet, and rational discussion”, he added. The proposition stated they did not think the student body’s view of Rustat’s involvment in the slave trade was clouted by disinformation.

Sutton, an accountant, said that he came to the conclusion that Rustat made little money from his investments in the Royal African Company (RAC), after researching his finances.

The opposition did not comment on the fact that Rustat thrice served as “Assistant” to the RAC, on top of investing in the company. The RAC was the single institution responsible for shipping the most women, men, and children accross the ocean, during the transantlantic slave trade.

Specialist in historic buildings Dr Roger Bowdler was then called to the witness box. Responding to Mark Hill, the legal representative of the petitioners, Dr Bowdler affirmed that removing the Rustat monument may harm its significance and that of the chapel. He also confirmed that compared to other chapels the number of monuments is already “fairly sparse.” He put the number at “some 45 monuments” scattered around Jesus College.

Mr Hill implored Dr Bowdler, and the opposition, to consider the motion in relation to the possible public benefit of the removal of the monument. He asked whether “any resulting public benefit, including pastoral wellbeing, opportunities for mission and putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its role as a place of worship, outweigh the harm?”

Before proceedings concluded for the afternoon, the petitioners asked Dr Bowdler to comment on the question of reversibility: that is, whether this would be an obstacle to removing the monument. Dr Bowdler explained that “the ability to demount and reassemble the monument should not be a principal objection to taking it down.”

Varsity will cover the closing of the hearing, that took place this Friday morning (04/02).