Cambridge students 'fed untruths about slave trade investor'

Tobias Rustat, a major benefactor of Jesus College, commissioned the memorial plaque himself

A group of Cambridge University students calling for the removal of a memorial to a man who invested in the slave trade have been "fed untruths", a church court heard.

The memorial to Tobias Rustat, who invested in the Royal African Company, can be found in Jesus College's chapel.

The college has asked the Diocese of Ely if the plaque can be relocated.

A college spokesman said it was "not seeking to cancel Rustat" but wanted the piece in "a more suitable place".

The case is being heard at a consistory court hearing, which is an ecclesiastical court dealing with matters of law relating to the Church - mainly in relation to its buildings.

Rustat had been one of Jesus College's largest benefactors before the 20th Century.

He commissioned the marble memorial on a wall in the chapel.

Sonita Alleyne is the master of Jesus College

Following recommendations by the college's Legacy of Slavery Working Party in 2019 and 2020, the college decided the memorial represented a celebration of Rustat that was "incompatible with the chapel as an inclusive community and a place of collective wellbeing".

Justin Gau, acting for the Rustat Memorial Group of alumni - who oppose the removal of the memorial - said Rustat was not rich through slavery.

In an email sent to students, he said Mr Rustat "amassed much of his wealth from the Royal African Company".

Mr Gau said this message "fed the undergraduates untruths".

"Rustat did not amass much of his wealth, indeed he amassed nearly no money at all of his enormous wealth from any investments he had," he said.

On Wednesday, Sonita Alleyne, Master of Jesus College and the first black female Master of an Oxbridge College, told the hearing that the chapel was a "sanctified space" and asked, "how much sin do you need to have before you come off the wall?"

Paul Vonberg of Paul Vonberg Architects, appearing as a witness for the petition to remove the memorial, said that the harm of removing the monument was "small enough to be outweighed by the benefit".