On 23 March 2022, David Hodge QC, acting as the Deputy Chancellor of Ely diocese handed down his judgment in the Consistory Court of the Diocese of Ely, on Re The Rustat Memorial, Jesus College Cambridge, in which he refused to grant a faculty to the College for the removal of the memorial. This has been reported in just about every British newspaper.
Full text of judgment (104 pages)
Summary of judgment (6 pages) (Recommended)
For a brief overview, see Law & Religion UK Rustat memorial: judgment
Jesus College Cambridge: Statement on the decision of the Consistory Court
Joint statement by historical experts
Pump Court Chambers: Justin Gau wins first ‘contested heritage case’
Church Times: Jesus Christ forgave Tobias Rustat, judge argues, and so must Jesus College
Archbishop Cranmer: Rustat 1 – 0 Welby | Jesus College Cambridge must retain its memorial to Tobias Rustat
“……..because of one facet of his life” Come on……! Have they not heard of what happened to Colston in Bristol. Fetch the rope lads!
Best not to say things like this, even if in jest (as I assume). A Cambridge jury might take a different view from the Bristol one. Also this is a consecrated church. I’m not sure whether sacrilege is still a crime but theft and criminal damage, just to start with, will land people in hot water – and maybe ‘inside’.
Irony is obviously not your strong point Rowland. For me it is sacrilege that it is up there…. Cheers!
On the contrary, that was what I assumed you meant. I have been around a long time, 80+ years now, and seen and experienced very much more than many people. I have these old-fashioned notions of courtesy and respect. I see that you haven’t responded to Fr Dean!
Is this post in contempt of court?
Well, it was certainly a surprise to learn that the Bishop of Ely had given evidence in his own Consistory Court in favour of the memorial’s removal although, of course, the Deputy-Chancellor was satisfied that it was entirely legally proper for the Bishop to do so. I express no view on the substantive matter, but if one scrolls down to the end of the Deputy-Chancellor’s judgment at pages 97 to 104, there is a series of photographs which give a far better idea of the existing position and an impression of the proposed location of the memorial if moved to… Read more »
Brilliant submission by Professor Goldman, much appreciated in the ruling. “The most dispiriting aspect of this hearing had been to learn that no attempt has been made to use the Rustat memorial as an educational, religious and moral opportunity, and thereby to provide that balance, that holistic approach, that Mr Hill had spoken about.” Overall, a wise judgment in the age of woke.
What is this ‘age of woke’ we’re allegedly living in? If by ‘woke’ we mean the admirable determination of some, including many young people, to give voice to those -today and in the past – often silenced by those who wield or have traditionally wielded power is that a bad thing? It may have its excesses but the Church and Christianity are hardly in a position to attack anyone for occasional excess of zealotry. And the present government and most of the newspapers are doing their damnedest to ensure that those who fear an ‘age of woke’ need not fear,… Read more »
How ironic to use the word ‘woke’ which is used in the black community to be aware of what is happening around them especially in terms of racism and injustice. It is weaponised by the right to undermine the debate around race and racism – I hope that is not the intention here.
It is of course wider than you suggest. “Woke had been extended figuratively to refer to being ‘aware’ or ‘well informed’ in a political or cultural sense.” (OED) It is quite another question as to whether proponents of ‘woke’ are actually ‘well informed’!
My issue with removing the monument is where do you draw the line. If association with slavery disqualifies you what about adultery, or any number of other sins . How bad do you have to be before you lose the right to a memorial?
I really believe there is a massive lack of moral equivalency here. Which doesn’t mean I think the betrayal of adultery not to be a terrible thing; but that engagement in violently seizing people from their homes and families, imprisoning and transporting them in appalling conditions and using them as commodities – all permitted by a de-grading of some human beings on grounds of race and colour – is rather worse.
Worse than murder or arranging a murder? Cf this comment on an earlier Archbishop Cranmer article last month, posted in response to Archbishop Welby’s remarks at General Synod about the Rustat memorial a few days after the conclusion of the consistory court hearing: “What should we be doing with the Bible then? Hebrews 11 lists heroes of Faith. In the list there are Abraham – lied about his wife. Moses – he murdered an Egyptian. Rahab was a prostitute. King David seduced Bathsheba and murdered her husband. Jephtha made a human sacrifice of his daughter. But their faith saved them.… Read more »
The writer to the Hebrews assumed his or her readers would know the stories of these men and women of faith (the writer does not call them ‘heroes’ but ‘elders’). And their stories as related in the Old Testament are definitely warts and all portraits, not eulogies. The problem with the Rustat inscription is that it is not at all nuanced, but makes him out to be a model of all the virtues. Which, clearly, he wasn’t. (I note in passing that, if I read the summary aright, the monument and inscription were installed during his lifetime – adding a… Read more »
Actually there was never a question of losing the right to a memorial, merely the right to the present location.
I suggest that anyone wishing to contribute to the exchange of views should, de minimis, read the Summary of Judgement of the Deputy Chancellor.
Indeed the full ruling is very interesting too and with many extra details. The general impression I took away was that the College had been rather sloppy in their processes, perhaps not expecting serious opposition. For example, the proposed re-housing of the monument was poorly thought out. And in general not engaging with the opponents’ genuine concerns. There might have been a different outcome with a better prepared proposal.
I hadn’t realised that Archbishop Welby had meddled in this matter. The judgment seems eminently sensible to me, comes to something when a judge teaches the Archbishop about forgiveness. His exquisite use of Jesus’ teaching to refuse the faculty for Jesus College is indeed a thing of beauty.
Yes, in some intemperate comments (seemingly off-script) during a debate about racial justice at General Synod on 8 February 2022, a few days after the 3-day consistory court hearing had concluded with judgment reserved . He was quite properly rebuked by former Dean of the Arches, Charles George QC, and former chancellor of the dioceses of Derby and Blackburn, John Bullimore, in their joint letter to the Church Times, published on 18 February 2022 (page 14).
Is it really ‘exquisite’ and ‘a thing of beauty’? I fully accept that Christ forgave his persecutors and urged his followers to do likewise. Likewise I trust that in Christ grace and forgiveness are found, and eternally. But as a white British man I think my forgiveness of Rustat is neither here nor there. I am not among those who died or were enslaved nor am I among those who live acutely with the legacy of slavery. And I don’t feel in a position to lecture those who are on their need to forgive those who were engaged in the… Read more »
Isn’t it possible to forgive Rustat as a person but still believe that a memorial to someone involved in slavery is inappropriate in a chapel? I don’t buy into the argument that wanting to move the memorial implies a lack of forgiveness.
A couple of minor points of detail: (i) there was no mention (that I could see in the full text) of the leading work on the monument, by Jane Renfrew and Michael Robbins (‘Tobias Rustat and his Monument in Jesus College Chapel, Cambridge’ in the Antiquaries Journal, v. 70 (2) 1990, at 416-23, cited incorrectly, as if it were a book, in the ODNB entry), and whilst Robbins, who was PSA, died in 2003, Lady Renfrew is still very much alive, but was not called as a witness; and (ii) Rustat left an extensive and detailed will, which not only… Read more »
Whilst Hewitt’s biography is somewhat hagiographic, it is worth reading to appreciate that Rustat was by no means all bad. Indeed, fallible as are we all, especially in relation to slavery of course, but nevertheless impressively generous too. Do we not all need forgiveness?
Many thanks. I agree. However, where I part company with Prof. Biggar is in his zeal for ‘truth’ (as he sees it). Historical truth is frequently partial, malleable and changes from generation to generation, and is a martyr to what Edward Thompson famously called the ‘condescension of posterity’. Of course John 18:38 also comes to mind. The issue at stake here is not about the ‘truth’: Rustat was, at best, a bit part slaver, but one who would likely have raised his stakes had he been assured of a greater return (contrary to popular belief, slaving was often hazardous and… Read more »
Oh, well said, Froghole!
I could go into the myriad logical fallacies used by all contributors to the report including the author.
Or, I could just say, what a colossal waste of time and that all at Cambridge would be better served tackling the bias and discrimination that exists right now rather than spending so much effort producing long-winded reports about where statues should be placed.
The judgment isn’t a ‘report’ and the Deputy-Chancellor, an ecclesiastical judge, isn’t an ‘author’. This has been a judicial process arising from the College applying for a faculty to relocate the monument, for which a faculty is legally required, and there being opponents to the proposal. It’s a wholly judicial process. And there may yet be more. The College is considering its position; Froghole summarises their options. Having said this, I share your view that aspects of this episode have been lamentable, not least the Archbishop’s saying, incorrectly, that the Master was offended by seeing the memorial from her stall.… Read more »
I suppose, to be completely fair, the Master might see the memorial en route to her stall. It is on the west wall of the chapel which does not have a central doorway, but, unless I am mistaken, she would consciously have to turn to see it. I’m happy to be corrected if this is wrong.
Reports are written accounts, nothing more or less. The fact that it is a judgement does not preclude it from being a report (indeed it is a report of the judgement). I am also presuming that as the Deputy Chancellor uses the word ‘I’ an awful lot throughout both the judgement and the summary he is indeed the author of these documents. Semantics are boring. The report is full of evidence that is based on slippery slope and guilt by association arguments on all sides. It is certainly verbose and legalistic as you would expect for such proceedings at Cambridge,… Read more »
Does the Chaplain allow the singing of ‘Amazing Grace’ in the chapel?
If so, why?
John Newton repented of his involvement in slavery and later campaigned against it. There’s no evidence that Rustat repented of his investment in slavery.
I’m aware of that, but I have no idea what was the state of grace or repentance of either of these two men at the time of their death. Do you? Let’s not make windows into men’s souls.
No one is making a judgement about whether either Newton or Rustat died in a state of grace. The question is whether either deserves a public monument and fulsome inscription in a place of worship. Newton, having previously captained a slave ship, showed his repentance by campaigning against slavery. If Rustat ever showed any sign of repentance at all, those who want to keep the monument seem not to have adduced it in support of their case.
Again, that’s making a judgement which we are not competent or authorised to make. Rustat’s memorial is to him as a generous donor.
I think you are not comparing like with like Toby. The hymn “Amazing Grace” can be chosen or rejected for use in worship. Worshippers and those organising worship have an option. The monument is a permanent feature with all its associations and sad history of the brutal treatment of human beings. For many people of colour this is a sad reminder of a terrible time in their history (and ours)…..and quite frankly I find it distasteful that it is still there. In Bristol the Colston monument is now recumbent in the museum with a very good history exhibition of its… Read more »
The Times this morning has an article by Nigel Biggar, which agrees with the judge that the college got this wrong.
Having defied the recommendation to read the shorter summary, I am surprised that a legal judgement of over a hundred pages could prove such good and entertaining reading. I am in no position to judge a legal judgement but there are portions of this judgement which read more as a sermon and, at times, a rather good sermon.
Many judges are surprisingly good writers.
It seems to me that there’s a creative opportunity here for the college to commission a large tapestry or hanging to be installed on the west wall, concealing the monument. Presumably there would be no legal bar to doing this, and no one would have to look at what is undoubtedly an offensive monument and inscription. I certainly wouldn’t want to lead worship with that in my line of vision.
But, Janet, the introduction of such a tapestry would require a faculty, and assuredly would be met with the same opposition.
Surely not if it were moveable, i.e. not ‘permanent? Those ugly modern chairs have been permitted in the chapel, though they clash with the surroundings. A tapestry, or even a large painting, could be mounted on a moveable frame in front of the monument.
A tapestry in the form you envisage would require hanging from fixings proud of the west wall or, if mounted on a vast free-standing wooden frame would equally require a faculty. Froghole has helpfully set out the lawful alternatives. It seems those commenting below with such radical proposals can’t have read his piece.
If the chairs don’t need a faculty, why would a moveable frame need one? If the chairs were indeed granted a faculty, those making the decision don’t seem to have been too fussy about history or aesthetics in that case. Why should they be more particular about a hanging which might might prove a suitable compromise to resolve a dispute?
I can’t make this post any shorter, and the ground has already been covered, but here it is, my emphases added in bold: Quoting, again, from the C of E website: “A faculty granted by the consistory court of the diocese is required before any alterations, additions or repairs are carried out to the fabric, fixtures or fittings of a church. A faculty is also required for the introduction, repair or disposal (including sale) of any plate, pictures, ornaments or other moveable goods of a church.” This is later qualified (and this ground has already been covered in my earlier comment): “However, certain matters can be… Read more »
I think the introduction of a tapestry intended for permanent display probably does require a faculty, particularly if it will obscure an existing feature. There is no description in Lists A or B to suggest that it would be exempt. The DAC would have to be consulted.
The inscription on the monument is a standard type of the period and completely unobjectionable. Neither is the monument as a piece of sculpture inherently offensive, being similarly a standard, if very high quality, work of the period.
The offence only manifests when one goes beyond the object itself and investigates the person remembered by the object. My own contention (in part because I’m a bit conflict averse) is that for the sake of a quiet life we should stop digging too deeply into the actions of our past benefactors. Sometimes it’s just not worth the trauma.
The trauma is there and unavoidable for people of colour and should offend all those opposed to slavery as cruel and immoral institution. See Froghole’s excellent comment above.
The trauma is certainly there now that certain elements have made a point of bringing it to light. I suspect for most students before this the monument will have been another tablet that they barely noticed, if they darkened the chapel’s doors at all. Sometimes the past is best left buried. What I don’t know can’t cause me pain.
I am wondering whether Janet has read the thoughtful Summary Judgement of the Consistory Court?
Yes, I have. I don’t think it will stand the test of history on moral, pastoral, and theological grounds, whatever its virtues in legal terms.
From 1887 to 1927 there was an organ at the west end, presumably covering the memorial. See https://www.npor.org.uk/NPORView.html?RI=N05210
I had thought, and had hoped, that this topic had been laid to rest after a couple of days without comments! However, further research (via a City of Cambridge freedom of information request) indicates that the memorial is believed to be in its original position after more than one move within the Chapel – in either or possibly both transepts at different times. But it was never obscured by the former west end organ (which, incidentally, had a very handsome Bodley case). It was in fact returned to the original position when the organ was removed in 1922, so it… Read more »
Personally I am aghast at the thought of large tapestry or hanging, however beautiful, being placed in front of the monument. To me that appears to indicate we must cover up and not think about the past, however uncomfortable that may be for some people.
Except the memorial itself represents a skewed and limited conception of the past. Without additional information all anyone will think on seeing the memorial is likely to be “what a generous man”, if that.
If I was part of the Jesus governing body, I would have lawyers working on whether the college can disaffiliate from the Church of England and thereby proceed without a faculty. If the Church of England is standing in the way of the spiritual life of the college, maybe it’s time to become independent. And if one Oxbridge college did it, there would be a flood tide – they could club together as a new, independent church founded on inclusion.
They could call it ‘the Cambridge movement’.
Thank you Kate, I agree with you. And it seems (final paragraphs of this article) that the Master of Jesus College agrees with your suggestion and is seeking to disassociate the life of the college from the chapel, and who can blame her. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/mar/26/cambridge-college-master-sonita-alleyne-aghast-tobias-rustat-plaque The article is worth reading in full. It describes how the Master, Sonita Alleyne, is doing everything that would be wanted of a Christian foundation. ” Her tenure has also coincided with growing diversity at Cambridge University. The 2020 cohort at Jesus College was described as “the most diverse in history” with more than four in… Read more »
Jesus College is a Christian foundation but already ‘inclusive’ like most/ all Oxbridge Colleges in welcoming students and staff of other faiths – or none. It happens to be, like Christ Church Oxford, a non-royal peculiar with the Bishop of Ely the Visitor in this case. It has its own Statutes and is subject additionally to the state legislation on Universities. The present master of Jesus College and everyone else there knew these facts before taking up their respective roles. The idea of ‘disestablishment’ is highly irresponsible, and very surprising to read coming from C of E members.
Rowland. I wonder if the difference between us is that as a lawyer, your definition of a Christian foundation is based on foundation in law and statute. But to me, as a minister, a Christian foundation is one that is a wellspring of Christian values and teaching, and a place where its members, especially its students, can be brought to a knowledge and love of God. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand, as Martyn Percy well knows.
I don’t wish to prolong this, but you haven’t dealt with the disestablishment issue suggested by Kate which I understood you to agree with. That idea is anathema to me, not as a lawyer (which I do not claim to be), but as a baptised and confirmed lifelong member of the Church of England.
Ah, a new “inclusive” church based in some of the most elite educational establishments in the country – a sort of Iwerne for Gen Z, perhaps…
Kate, I was flabbergasted to read this, but have dealt with the more substantive points in a reply to Simon Dawson, so won’t repeat them here.
If the college disaffiliated from the Church of England the chapel would still remain a Grade 1 listed building, with legal processes to be navigated, although different, secular ones. In fact secular planning processes are arguably stricter when it comes to listed non-church buildings than the church’s equivalent – making changes to our listed church buildings probably be a lot more difficult if we didn’t have the ecclesiastical exemption that allows changes to go through Archdeacons, the Faculty process etc.
Indeed, but Janet’s suggestion of a tapestry on a stand placed in front, as an example, wouldn’t require listed building consent even though it may require a faculty.
Is there wisdom in the words of James Baldwin? ‘History, as nearly no one seems to know, is not merely something to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do. It could scarcely be otherwise, since it is to history that we own our frames of reference, our identities and our aspirations. And it is with great pain… Read more »
Forgive me for sounding horribly naive and thick, but why was the Chancellor of the Diocese of Ely involved in this in the first place? Isn’t Jesus College Chapel (like King’s, St John’s and all the others) extra-diocesan? The clergy that staff these chapels probably require a Licence from the Bishop of Ely to minister there; but isn’t the governance of a college chapel, including its fabric, a matter for the college? Ditto being outside the Faculty jurisdiction when it comes to introducing new objects? Someone here with a far better brain than me will doubtless know the answer to… Read more »
I was the Headmaster of a Woodard School in the 1990’s and we were instructed that any changes to our school chapel (if listed) would require either planning consent or be subject to the faculty system, and we needed to choose. We were strongly advised to opt for the faculty system, which we did. I assume that at the time Jesus did the same, which is why the matter is being dealt with by the diocese. Changes to the college fabric is never just a matter for the college, not if it involves a listed building.
See Pater’s post above.
The disestablishment suggestion is, surely, a non-runner, and (I suggest) a wholly inappropriate thing to have suggested.
Ahh…. the Woodard Foundation! A place where individual lives of young people should have been better safeguarded in the past perhaps more than they were. Iwerne/Titus has had a bashing on this site, but let us not forget other educational establishments and their collective organisations.
I ought to qualify my earlier comment to clarify that, of course, I did not intend to infer that the disestablishment suggestion was yours.
I will defer to others, but as far as I am aware, consecrated buildings within peculiars retain the ecclesiastical exemption by dint of being within the faculty jurisdiction of their ordinaries (i.e., bishops), if they make an application to be governed by that jurisdiction. Under Section 60 (5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is a right to an ecclesiastical exemption to the planning rules: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/9/section/60. An application can be made by a college to join the faculty jurisdiction under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2018/3/section/38/enacted and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2018/3/section/43/enacted. The College made… Read more »
The answer to your question is here, in paragraph 5 of the Deputy-Chancellor’s judgment, quoted verbatim: “Because the Chapel is included in the list of places of worship maintained by the Church Buildings Council under s. 38 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018 (the 2018 Measure), it is subject to the faculty jurisdiction of the diocese of Ely, exercised through its consistory court. It therefore benefits from the ‘ecclesiastical exemption’ from the need for listed building consent. This means that a faculty (or permission) from the consistory court of the diocese takes the place of listed… Read more »
Many thanks for that. You are, as always, on the money. The freedom of the colleges from the bishops of Ely was supposedly established by Martin V in 1430: https://arcspace-pub.lib.cam.ac.uk/repositories/2/archival_objects/9561. Also here: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/cambs/vol3/pp150-166 and pp. 220-23 here: https://archive.org/details/historyofunivers0001unse/page/220/mode/2up?view=theater. Absent these materials and the Steinberg article cited above on the ‘Barnwell process’, the other useful account of the ‘independence’ of the universities from episcopal control that I have encountered is at pp. 1603-10 here: https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalla02phil_0/page/1608/mode/2up?view=theater, which touches upon Charles I’s decision of 1637. Although this work is very dated (1895), it is a goldmine. Sir Robert Phillimore was an outstanding ecclesiastical… Read more »
This is so boring IMO and nothing written here makes the slightest difference. Oh God, there’ll now be a host of comments telling me what a dinosaur I am. Mornington Crescent please.
There has been this update: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/12/c-of-e-procedures-on-racial-injustice-inadequate-says-cambridge-college The College has therefore decided not to appeal to the Arches. The expression of dissatisfaction with the judgment and the Church’s procedures might point to a potential abandonment by the College of the ecclesiastical exemption. If it does turn to the secular planning system, then it is likely to confront planning officers tasked by ministers with the implementation of a ‘retain and explain’ system. This, then, is a potential dilemma for the governing body, assuming that it wishes to continue to adhere to ecclesiastical or secular planning laws. Of course, it is possible that… Read more »
If I may rescind temporarily my Mornington Crescent request … The Oxbridge college chapels are now – and I mean this – ridiculous. At Cambridge, even in 1969-72, they were essentially concert venues. Sunday said HC at Queens’ sometimes attracted double figures, and Sunday choral evensong maybe 20 or so in addition to the choir. At the daily offices the officiant, often an undergraduate, was likely to be alone. When I preached at the Commemoration of Benefactors in I think 2010 the attendance figure in the service register told an even more woeful story. The one service for which the… Read more »
Many thanks, Prof. Monkhouse. Some people might exclaim that many colleges were Christian foundations, and that it is necessary to obey the wishes of the founder. However, if that argument were taken to its respectable conclusions many chapels would have to become RC, most fellows (barring Peterhouse) would have to take orders and be celibate, and if they are married they would have to vacate their fellowships. The undergraduates would all have to be male and communicants. They would also have to attend chapel twice daily. Fellows and scholars would have to hail from particular counties, or else vacate their… Read more »
Archbishop Welby is, evidently, conscious of the vulnerability of the Church’s position in the College and University (as the deputy chancellor was not), and has repeated his call for the monument to go: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/13/justin-welby-backs-removal-of-slave-trader-memorial-in-cambridge-college.
See also new post on this topic.