OATH OF HORATII: THE PLEDGE TO CIVIL DUTY

Jacques-Louis David: The Oath of the Horatii

The year is 1784, just five years before the French revolution; King Louis XVI of France wanted a painting that would invoke feelings of Loyalty to himself and the state with the hope to gain more public support. His Minister of Fine Arts, Charles –Claude Flahaut de Le Billaderie, decide to commission Jacques-Louis David for this project. David was a recent recipient of the coveted Prix de Rome, a prize given annually to one advanced art student.

David decided to make oil on canvas painting and in the process express a Roman Legend, told by Livy that took place in the year 669 BCE (7^th Century).

The Roman legend goes that, the City of Rome and the City of Alba were in conflict. The leaders of the two cities decided that instead of having a full scale war that they will each call three men from either side to fight on behalf of their cities and the men who win, will have won the war on behalf of the city. The City of Rome chose the Horatti brothers and the city of Alba chose the Curiatti Brothers.

David’s painting capture the defining moment when the Father of the Horatti Brothers, had summoned them and made them to pledge an oath that they will “conquer or die” for Rome. The painting grips the moment when the father lifting the three swords to be used by the brothers aloft. The father appears to be “filled with joy seeing he had sons so worthy of him.” The three brothers raise their arms courageously saluting their father, their standing posture evoking ideals of selflessness, determination, comradery, heroism and a reassuring position to mean business.

On the far right of the painting, are women and children who appear to be in distress the two women are Sabina and Camilla and a third woman covering the children. The women are in distress because, Camilla has been betrothed to one of the Curiatti brothers, and Sabina a sister to the Curiatti is married to one of the Horattii brothers. In in any event, regardless of the champion, they stand to lose someone they love; either a brother or a husband.

Despite this tight and close family ties through marriage the “Horatii’s father exhorts the sons to fight the Curiatii and they obey, despite the lamentation of the women.”

When the Horattii and Curiatii duel occurs, there is only one man left standing; a Horattii is the sole survivor. When he comes back home he finds Camilla cursing his beloved Rome for making her lose her Curiattii fiancé. The surviving Horattii is angered; he draws his sword and kills Camilla on the spot claiming that she was “putting her sentiments above her duty to Rome.”

When the Painting was exhibited at the Paris Salon in 1785, it immediately became a hit. Everyone was transfixed by the painting. The painting was not only griping but revolutionary as it marked the start of the neoclassical style of painting away from the common Rococo style. The painting cemented David’s reputation as a preeminent painter of the era.  When the French Revolution broke, the painting became the face of the Revolution and the symbol of patriotism and self-sacrifice.

The painting is still in existence to date and if you want to see it you can visit Louvre Museum, Paris and you will have a glimpse of this great work of art.

The painting is still relevant to us today and should be on our forethought at all times. Not in the sense that we should be going to duels to solve our issues or murder anyone who holds an opinion that condemns patriotism or we should agree and accept all decision that have been passed. No one needs to die for his county but everyone must live for humanity.  In an age of intense nepotism, selfishness, and making money at all cost mentality, values such as valor, sacrifice, moral duty, selfless service, loyalty, civil duty are rare.

Horattii brothers placed the interest of their city before their lives; they placed their civil duty over personal interest. They took it as an honor to fight for their city. Today we may not have cities we are fighting against, but we are fighting mindsets of corruption, racism, nepotism, ideas of religion extremism, and mentalities of profits before people. Will you choose to fight all the way through the justice system or would you prefer to bribe the police? Will you choose deforestation  to spoil the environment or to pass a better environment to the future generation? Will you choose to give that employment or contract to your relative or the most suitable candidate or bidder?

Daily we face choices of civil duty over personal interest. Maybe if you have the painting of the Oath of Horattii before you and their noble examples of dedication and sacrifice beforehand; values of loyalty to your country, love to humanity, dreams of a better world will come popping in your mind and you shall make a better choice.

(Picture from wartburg.edu)

THE ZONG CASE (GREGSON V. GILBERT (1783)): MASSACRE IN THE NAME OF PROFITS

The Ship

The Slave  Ship Painting

On the 6^th September, 1781, A ship named the Zong under the command of Luke Collingwood, raised its anchor and set sails, ready to voyage from West Africa through the Atlantic ocean to America where the human Cargo on board will be sold to the Land of slavery. This is the infamous Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (Triangular Trade) where British made goods were brought to Africa in exchange for slaves, the slaves would be shipped to America, where they would be exchanged for slave-grown products such as sugar, tobacco and cotton. The slave-grown goods would then be taken to Britain where they would be exchanged for British made goods and the cycle around the triangle could continue.

The Zong ship was constructed to carry 250 slaves per voyage but due to the selfish urge and greed to make more profits the ship was over the required capacity, with a total of 470 slaves. It was so congested that it was said the slaves had “less room than in a coffin”.  The conditions were so  inhumane and slaves were require to go for their nature calls on themselves.

Due to these unhygienic condition, malnutrition and other factors there was an outbreak of a plague. Crew members and slaves begun to die and a total of sixty slaves and seven white people died. Luke Collingwood was worried that the more slaves died, the more the proceeds from the sale of the human cargo was reduced and the less the commission he will get from the sale.

Collingwood called for a crew meeting and alleged that there was a leakage on the water storage tanks. To ensure sufficient water for the crew and slaves and they are to pick the slaves they perceived sick and dying and throw them alive into the sea.

Trans Atlantic Trade(Triangular Trade)

The reasoning of Collingwood was “if they throw the slaves alive into the sea the insurer will pay” for the loss, but if they died due to natural factors such as sickness on board the ship they will not be  able to make a claim for the loss. To justify his actions he told the crew members that throwing the sick slave will be an act of mercy since “it is less cruel to throw the sick into sea” than letting them suffer to their death on the ship “under the disorder” conditions of the ship. Some crew members objected this move but ultimately Collingwood prevailed.

The Massacre

132 slaves were selected and would be jettisoned out of the ship while chained, therefore deprived any possibility of escaping. On the first day 54 slaves were thrown overboard, on the second day 42 slaves, on the third day 26 slaves, some 10 slaves on knowing what was awaiting them “sprang disdainfully from the  grasp of their  tyrants... and leaping into the sea” preferring to embrace their death with momentary triumph over the tyrants by dying on their own terms.

On reaching Jamaica the remaining slaves were sold.

The ship went to Britain. The owners of the ship made their insurance claim on ground of “necessity” that cargo was “jettisoned to sea to save the remainder” and therefore were eligible for insurance compensation. The Insurer disputed it and refused to settle. The Insurer claimed it was not a necessity. The Insured moved to court. The court ruled in favor of the Insured. The insurer appealed (Gregson V. Gilbert (1783) 3 Doug. KB 232(Zong Case)) to the Chief Justice.

The Case

The case and the incidence of what had happened caught the attention of Olaudah Equiano a famous former slave, who was now an abolitionist. Equiano approached Granville Sharp, an English man and leading campaigner against slave trade. Equiano told him the horrific incidence of the Zong Ship. 

Sharp took great interest in the case and hired a typist who they would go to the court hearings with and the typist typed everything that was said in the court during the hearings. And actually much of historic material of the case is from the typist work. Sharp, though not a lawyer and once confessed to having ‘never opened a law book’, had previously earned prominence as abolitionist in the case of Somerset V. Stewart(1772) where he had assisted a slave, Somerset obtain orders of Habeas corpus and thereafter orders preventing his master, Stewart from forcefully sending him overseas to slavery. The court had ruled in this case that “a slave becomes free the moment he set foot on English territory.” However, the ruling did not end slavery.

During the case arguments of the Zong Case, the attorney of the insured notoriously argued that throwing the slaves overboard was “the same as if assets had been thrown” and that the captain would do this without any scintilla of guilt because it is the most reasonable thing to so and the insurer  are liable to pay.

The insurance attorney argued that on investigation, that there was indeed sufficient water in the ship and “no person in the ship had been put on short water allowance at any moment” and in the second day after throwing slaves overboard “plentiful rain fell” but the captain persisted in throwing 36 slaves overboard the next day. Further on reaching their destination there was still sufficient water in the ship. This was in fact true.

On revelation of these facts it was clear that the captain was defrauding the insurer. That he had placed profits before live. In deed it was an “act of necessity” to to save profits by murder.

Granville Sharp, was keen in attending the hearings with the intention to bring murder charges against the captain and the crew and the ship owners.

Sharp presence in the hearings did not go unnoticed. The attorneys for the insured knowing his intentions of bringing murder charges against their clients violently exclaimed, there is “a person in this court who intend to bring criminal prosecution for murder against the parties, [this] would be madness; the blacks were property.”  To this attorney it was not lives that were lost, it was assets; it was profits.

The attorneys of the insurance company noting Sharp presence stated that the “crew ought to be tried for murder” that “the life of one man is like the life of another man, whatever the complexion is” and deciding who to die to save another cannot be used as a ground for an act of necessity; that as long as there was water in the ship all “men were as much entitled to their [lives] as the captain or any other man whatsoever.”  The attorney informed the court that the court should not look at the case as just as a claim for compensation but it was “for millions of mankind; for the cause of humanity in general.” This was indeed true, slaves were considered as chattels and property. Therefore, slaves could be insured. Therefore , by giving a judgment to consider slaves as humans it would save millions of slaves from being jettisoned from slave ships.

Granville Sharp

Lord Mansfield was the Chief Justice and judge on this appeal.

Lord Mansfield was a celebrated commercial law Lawyer and Judge. He was reluctant to give a definitive judgment on slavery on fear that it would affect the commercial activity, since the English commercial activity was built and relied on slave trade and in fact 80% of Britain’s foreign income was based on slave trade and therefore making a definitive judgment that Slaves were not assets would cause commercial confusion and economic decline, therefore he gave a vague decision  and went on to give the infamous statement that he “had no doubt that the case of the slaves was the same as if horses had been thrown overboard.” In short to him slaves were just chattels who could be dealt with as such to save profits.

But due to the new evidence of availability of water on jettisoning slaves out of the ship the case was returned for retrial. There is no available evidence to indicate if the retrial ever took place.

The Zong Aftermath

Granville Sharp intention to bring murder charges never took off but he documented the Zong Incident, wrote letters to leaders and readers and newspaper outlets who reported the incident. The public became aware about this incidence and “the circumstances of the most inhuman murder” in the pretense of necessity and it incidence caused a lot of annoyance to the public. “It opened the eyes of the British public to the selfish cruelty of the slave trade more than any other.” In giving the case publicity, Sharp would pose the question “[why] were the heart so hard and the head so inaccessible that did not instantly take part against such a state of things, in a country of which the enlightened laws and impartial justice were acknowledged as the boast of human wisdom and pattern of human freedom?”…. people felt challenge and compelled to take action and give justice to slaves.

Sharp gave utmost publicity to the circumstances that had happened. His efforts, research and ideas would influence and be taken up by people such as Thomas Clarkson, who would write an award winning essay on abolition of slavery that would influence William Wilberforce who took “suppression of slave trade” as his calling for life by God.  

Wilberforce made numerous speeches in parliament to convince members to pass an Act to end slavery. It was difficult since most Parliamentarians were active slave traders and owners.  Once in his trying to convince them to change to other forms of business he said “Let not parliament be the only body that is insensible to the principle of National Justice… Let us make reparation to Africa, so far as we can, by establishing a trade upon true commercial principles, and we shall soon find the rectitude of our conduct rewarded by the benefits of a regular and growing commerce.”

Wilberforce would work tirelessly for about 50 years to ensure an Act of Slavery Abolition is passed.  In 1807 parliament passed the Slave Trade Act that ended slave trade and in 1833 while on his death bed he received the news that Parliament had passed the Slavery Abolition Act, 1833 and three days of receiving this news he died.

The abolition of slavery campaign and success in Britain had ripple effect, in America where slavery would also be abolished in 18656. Sharp efforts to end slavery would be recognized in America by prominent personality such John Adams, Dr. Franklin, John Jay who would write letters of congratulations to Sharp. Sharp would receive honorary Doctors of Law degree from University of Cambridge, Massachusetts etc.

The campaign against slavery “proved to be the world’s first grassroots human rights campaign, in which men and women from different social classes and background volunteered to try to end the Injustice suffered by others.” It led to the realization and development of the Universal Human Rights. Where Individual rights are recognized and the recognition that the society and government exists to ensure individual rights and freedoms are protected and guaranteed.

Abolitionist Medallion

There is actually no uniqueness on the Zong Ship incidence, of congesting, throwing slaves overboard and making insurance claim for compensation. That was the norm of treating slaves in those dark days. The uniqueness comes in from its development into the abolition of salve trade.

The thorn of slavery will remain on the humanity flesh for years and should remain there to remind us of our capacity to degrade our fellow humans.

In this 21^st Centrury, more than 230 years after the Zong case, we still see similar incidences; where profits are placed before human, where companies sell poison for food in the name of profits, where environment is destroyed in the name of civilization, where pharmaceutical companies use humans as test tubes to make profitable drugs, where wars are created for economic advantage yet lives are lost, where election violence is the tool for a “democratic” election. And we see the society and goverments at large being blind to these issues.

The society shall never lack its own, Olaudah Equiano, Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce etc to point out the injustice in our society and change the normal course of history and curve the arc of humanity to the direction of justice. The government may be blind to many unjust issues in the society like Lord Mansfield was  due to concentration on the commercial and economic implication but the society should never let the likes of Luke Collingwood to walk scot-free at the expense of human life.

The likes of Luke Collingwood are the companies that pollute our environment in the name of profits, they are the corrupt judiciary that takes bribes and forsake justice, they are the  racist that judge people by the complexity of their skin rather than the content of their character, they are the billionaires that see human as a tool to make more billions, they are the human traffickers who see human as tools of labor and illicit pleasure, they are the politicians who sponsor violence in the name of retention of political power and maintenance of status quo. But this likes of Luke Collingwood need to be met by the likes of Sharp who see and seek humanity for everyone, the likes of Wangari Mathai who speak truth to power, the likes of Thomas Sankara who see a better country with gender inclusion, the like of Malala Yousafzai  who see education as a tool to end terrorism, the likes of  Abraham Lincon who will fight for unity in the midst of division, the likes of Martin Luther who led marches to freedom, the likes of Nelson Mandel who will persistently make the long walk to freedom, the likes of you and me who see a better today and tomorrow.

Your voice and action are the much needed effort to make this world a better place. You may never be recognized or celebrated as William Willberforce or Sharp or Nelson Mandela was but as The Solicitor- General would say of Mr. Wilberforce  on passing the Slave Trade Act, that “when [we] look to the man at the head of the French Monarchy( Napoleon), surrounded as he was with all the pomp and power, and all the pride and victory,…when he sat upon his throne, to reach the summit of human ambition and the pinnacle of earthly happiness and when we follow that man into his closet or to his bed and consider the pangs with which his solitude must be torturing to him and his repose banished by the recollection of the blood he had spilled, and the oppression he had committed and when we compare the pangs of remorse, the feelings which must accompany Mr. Wilberforce from [parliament] to his home, after the vote has confirmed the object of his humane and unceasing labours [of passing the Slave Trade Act]; when he should retire into the bosom of his happy and delighted  family, when he should lay himself down on his bed, reflecting on the innumerable, voices that would be raised in every quarter of the world to bless him; how much more pure and perfect felicity must he enjoy in the consciousness of having preserved so many millions of his fellow-creatures, than the man with whom we [have] compared him, on the throne to which he had waded through slaughter and oppression.”

Pictures by: Howell History, Wikipedia, Micahc, 
Reference Material: British Law Report, 

FLAYING JUDGE SISAMNES: WHEN CORRUPT JUDGES WERE PUBLICLY SKINNED ALIVE

"The Flaying of Sisamnes", by Gerard David.

The ‘due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government’ and once that pillar becomes weak the whole structure of governance comes tumbling down. To maintain this pillar, the integrity and independence of the judiciary in administration of justice must be jealously guarded.  This means that the magistrates and judges who are at the center of the administration of justice must be honest and impartial; they must be like caeser’s wife, above suspicion and beyond reproach.

In the 6^th Century BC during the reign of Cambyses II, the King of Persia, as documented by Herodotus, Judge Sisamnes having been bribed gave an unjust verdict in a lawsuit. On being found out, the king ordered for his arrest. He was found guilty of prevarication. He was sentence to be strangled and flayed, and the chair on which he sat when pronouncing the unjust judgment be upholstered with his skin. The sentence was publicly executed.  

The king then named Sisamnes’s son, Otanes, to succeed his father as judge. The son, now as a Judge Otanes, was to perform his duties while sitting on his father’s seat upholster with his father’s skin, and the king recommended him to bear in mind the source of the leather of the seat upon which he would seat to hear evidence, deliberate and administer justice. This must have left a continuous lingering impression and maybe it ensured he set the bar of fairness higher knowing very well the consequences of corruption and lack of fairness.

In the 15^th Century, in the  1480s, the municipal authorities of Bruges wanted paintings in their justice-room. They commissioned David Gerard to make paintings that will inform the authorities of importance of integrity and honesty.  Gerard drew the painting known as “Judgment of Cambyses” which depicts the scenes of the arrest and fraying of Judge Sisamnes. The intention was to represent the scene of flaying of Judge Sisamnes with a sense of coldness and exemplary cruelty and acted as a stern warning to judges in the justice room against the temptation of corruption since, looking at the painting, its moral and horror cannot easily be forgotten.

"The Arrest of Sisamnes", by Gerard David.

A graphic detailed painting of a man being frayed alive hanging on a wall in a public place is by no means a pleasant sight to look at but if we consider the intention then we can perfectly congratulate Gerard for accurately picking the right historical event and depicting it in a painting that remains relevant in all human ages.

The painting perfectly portrays the giving of a judge a dosage of his own medicine. A judge being directly subjected to the pain and agony he subjects others when he dispenses unjust verdicts. A judge passing an unjust verdict may not understand the pain of injustice, as it has been well put by George Martin, that “The [judge] who passes the sentence should swing the sword [but when he] hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is.” When the judge sits at the bench he may not understand the consequence of his crooked character. Gerard’s painting speaks a language that maybe the judges understand, a language that tells the judge “imagine this pain being subjected to yourself?”

It portrays a judge being subjected to the pains of injustice which he subjected members of the public by dereliction from his mandate of being fair, just, impartial and honest; a judge being subjected to the cost of forsaking his independence for a bribe; a judge being subjected to the consequence of forsaking his public duty for selfish personal gains.

Of Course, the Painting is not intended for judges alone, but to enable everyone empathize with others who are victims of injustice. It enables a person place himself in the shoe of a victim of an unjust sentence. It enables the public to be angry of the pains of injustice and take action against unjust actions. It gives the public a shared determination to wipe away corrupt judges. It enables the public realize that their action of giving, condoning and accepting bribes is painful and the painting does just that by creating a mental picture of anyone who is corrupt to enter the flesh of the victim of a corrupt judgment and feel the pain of an unjust and unfair action.

The judiciary is a creation of the society, for a judge to give a corrupt verdict a member of the society must have contaminated the independence of the judge. As John Marshall would put it, that “the greatest scourge an angry heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt or a dependent judiciary.” Society creates corrupt judges by either participating, condoning or not placing judges or judgments to account.

 The consequence of lacking an impartial and independent judiciary is that justice can only be bought by the highest bidder. It places a price on justice and creates an impression that laws and facts are not enough to balance the scales of justice unless money is added on the scales. It makes justice worthless and equality before the law is dependent on how mighty the wallet is. It makes humanity leap towards animalist character where might is right. Where as long as you can afford the price of justice you have no obligation to follow the law, you can kill, steal and destroy and remain untouchable. Society turns into a state of nature.

An Independent judiciary entails the passing of judgment based on facts and law and impartial Judges serve as neutral arbiters. Its impartiality enables ‘the rich and poor, the educated an uneducated, the strong and weak to stand without distinction in the leveling light of the constitution and body of law.’ When the justice lacks its impartiality and independence, people in the society lack avenue to report and address their grievances. The legitimacy of the government is eroded because who will observe a law if they know it cannot be enforced or used to protect them. Due to corruption an innocent man goes to jail and a guilty man walks free and  ‘the society will exclaim that it is immaterial to whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of members of the society, there would be an end to all security what so ever. They take law into their hands; they become the police, the prosecutor, the judge and executioner.

The Judgment of Cambyses. Stained glass, by Dirk Vellert,
in the background his skin is upholstered on his son's judgment seat,

removes this legitimacy and predictability and the application of the law is dependent on who is the highest bidder. If someone with a greater price wronged you then you have no voice and the scale of justice will swing towards the one with the mightier wallet. This leads to creation of mafias in the society who can resolve the conflicts and secure the rights that government has neglected to protect and there and then disorder becomes the order of the society.

It can perfectly be said a corrupt judge is a threat to National Security because their unjust verdict has a ripple effect that when placed together with other million ripples created from other  areas of injustice they build a great wave that can sweep down all the Pillars of the society. A corrupt judge deprives people an avenue to peacefully and justly resolve their conflict. If this avenue lacks, people  stop observing the law and governance fails.

There is great truth in the statement of George Washington, the first president of America when he said in his letter to Edmund Randolph that “ impressed with a conviction that the due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government , I have considered the first arrangement of the judicial department as essential to the happiness of our country and to that stability of its political system- hence selection of the fittest character to expound the laws, and dispense justice has been an invariable object of my anxious concern.” (Emphasis mine)

From the foregoing, I believe we share the same convictions and anxious concerns that the fittest characters are the ones who are to dispense justice and that the happiness of our system is determined by them.  And that we can always run to strong tower of justice ‘when constitutional freedoms and liberties are endangered, when expediency threatens justice, when fad menaces principles, and when whim diverts consistency, it is an independent judiciary that strikes the balance and sets all things right. The judiciary must be free to decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.’

Judicial independence is a matter of character. In all our actions may we always keep in the forefront of our minds the painting of “Judgment of Cambyses” knowing very well that the pains of injustice are gruesome and it is upon ourselves to maintain an impartial, accountable and just system. As Pericles would put it, that “If Athens shall appear great to you consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men and by men who learned their duties.” If Justice is to appear great in our society let all men know and do their duty.

SIR THOMAS MORE: THE BATTLE TO DEATH, PRINCIPLES VERSUS POWER

Sir Thomas More

‘When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses’ but ‘Sir Thomas More offers the fundamental lesson of flight from success and easy compromises in the name of fidelity to irrevocable principles’. History is full of people who place profit before morals, of people who betrayed their country for a pay cheque, of a disciple who betrayed his leader with a kiss on the cheek for thirty silver coins, politicians who stole hospital development funds for their healthy bank accounts, of business people who sell poisonous food, to fatten their bank accounts and the list goes on. Once in a while we see people who stand for what they believe in and they change history forever, Sir Thomas More is one such person. And as G. K. Chesterson would write that Thomas More “was above all things historic; he represented …, a turning point and an ultimate destiny. If there had not happened to be that particular man at that particular moment, the whole of history would have been different." In short, Thomas More changed the course of history.

The year is 1529, King Henry VIII, King of England is in desperate need of a son to inherit the throne. His current wife Queen Catherine of Aragon is likely past prime child bearing years, presumably barren and the King is unwilling to leave the throne to a female, his daughter Princess Mary I. The sons Queen Catherine had birthed were either stillborn or died at early age.

The King, maybe out of lust or desperation came up with a plan to declare his marriage to Queen Catherine unlawful and therefore null. By so doing his daughter will be illegitimate, therefore disinherited the throne. Secondly, the annulment of the Marriage will enable him to marry a new mistress,Anne Boleyn and maybe get a son with her to inherit the throne.

The king decided to question his 18 year old marriage to the queen. He claimed that since Queen Catherine was initially married to Arthur, his elder brother; that’s the reason God was punishing him with no son. To support this, King Henry VIII quoted the bible, the Book of Leviticus 20:21: "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing...they shall be childless."

 

King Henry VIII

At the time the King married Queen Catherine of Argon, the Catholic Church had a great say in the Kings Marriages. To allow King Henry VIII to marry his Brothers alleged wife the Catholic Church has issued a dispensation from the injunction found in the Bible's Leviticus on grounds that Catherine had been briefly married to Arthur but the marriage had not been consummated. Therefore, Pope Julius II blessed the marriage.

Now, King Henry VIII was again approaching the Pope, now Pope Clement VII the successor of Pope Julius II who had since died, to dispense and annul the same marriage the Church had issued a dispensation and blessed. The Pope was uncomfortable with this since it would make the church dispensation to appear as a switch which could be turned on and off the provisions of the Bible to meet an individual interest. The church refused.

Since the Pope refused to issue a dispensation and actually affirmed the marriage to Queen Catherine as valid, the King was outraged and decided to declare himself "the sole protector and supreme head of the English Church and clergy." And due to the church refusal to annul the marriage, the King aggressively and directly attacked the authority of the Church. With his authority as the supreme head of the church, the church would only exercise its authority with the consent of the King. With his new authority, the King declared his marriage to Anne Boleyn valid.

To secure his authority, The Act of Succession was passed that required all people in the realm to take oath and declare that they acknowledge the marriage to Queen Catherine as invalid and that King Henry VIII “most dear and entirely beloved lawful wife Queen Anne, begotten and to be begotten… to the heirs of our said sovereign” and that the King is Supreme head of the church. Anyone who failed to do so was considered to have committed a treasonable act and the penalty was death.

Sir Thomas More was Lord Chancellor of the Realm and was widely respected and influential in the Kingdom, due to his unfailing moral integrity, his constant ‘fidelity to legitimate authority and his unconditional and benevolent dedication to justice’. He placed his service to the public especially to the weak and poor that his fellow citizens called him “Patron of the Poor”. He was a firm and staunch believer in the Catholic Faith. He was a rare combination of a powerful public servant and spiritual human. He portrayed a harmony of the supernatural and the human, of political commitment and moral conviction. He believed that ‘when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos’ and that government is above all an exercise of virtue.

 During his tenure as Lord Chancellor, he viciously and vigorously pursued and persecuted heretics who spoke against the Catholic Church. But he  resigned, when his principles clashed with the powers of the king due to King Henry VIII continuous attack on the church and the King’s marriage to Anne Boleyn

 

Thomas More Defending the Liberty of the House of Commons

 The King needed Sir Thomas to take the oath due to his former position as Lord Chancellor, his wide respect and influence. His great reputation as a honest man made him the prominent figure to promote and sanctify the King’s agenda. By Sir More taking the oath would act as ratify the oath as lawful and right and it would face minimal resistance among the people in the kingdom. Sir More was therefore summoned to take the oath and on reading its content, he refused to take the oath. When asked to disclose the reason of refusing the oath he said “his conscience would not allow him to take it”. Even after ‘much cajoling and threats of imprisonment’ from the commissioners for failure to take oath he said he refused to betray his conscience.

Sir More considered that the oath required him to state that he recognized the king to be Supreme head of the church, implying that the Kings authority supersedes that of the Church  and  that the marriage to the mistress was therefore right. Sir More considered taking such an oath a betrayal to his principles and conscience. He questioned the authority of the King to enforce laws that were inconsistent and violated the teachings of Christ, law of God, Universal Catholic Church, the Magna Carta that provided that “that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired” and the King’s Coronation Oath.

To Sir More an oath, was not something you take to please the authority and silently disregard. To him an oath was a definite contract, ‘an invitation to God, an invitation that God would not refuse to act as a witness and judge’ and that a man ‘takes an oath when he wants to commit himself quiet exceptionally to the statement, when he wants to make an identity between the truth of it and his own virtue, he offers himself as guarantee.’ Therefore, Taking the oath was repugnant his principles and conscience.

On being persuaded to take the oath a friend brought a list of names to him and said, “look at those names… You know those men! Can’t you do what I did, and come with us for fellowship?” the man was telling him to just compromise and sway with the public opinion to please the authority and take the oath and it does not really matter his personal view on the oath. More answered, “And when we stand before God and you are sent to paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?” He was arrested and imprisoned in The Tower of London; the most terrifying and horrifying prison in London at the time.

 His family including wife and children took the oath but not Sir Thomas More, he could not be swerved from the path of truth and virtue. In matters of conscience Sir More was more burden to be loyal to his conscience than to any other thing, even on the face of death. 

He was offered pardon before trial would start if he would repent and revoke his “willful and obstinate opinion” but he graciously declined and said that  God would grant him “good, honest and upright mind even to the last hour and extreme moment “ of his life.

Sir More would stand a trial for his life that would test his all legal experience as a lawyer, judge and Lord Chancellor. The trial was before a jury that guaranteed a guilt penalty since it was made up of relatives of Kings Mistress, Anne Bolyne; all who has strong interest to convict Thomas More.

‘Finally, the sentence was pronounced on the man of unbreakable conscience: it read that ‘More should be "drawn on a hurdle through the City of London to Tyburn, there to be hanged till he should be half dead; then he should be cut down alive, his privy parts cut off, his belly ripped, his bowels burnt, his four quarters sit up over four gates of the City and his head upon London Bridge."

On the execution dated, saying his last words, he said ‘he was the King’s good servant, but God first.’ He  knelt down, laid his head upon the block, and stretched his arms out in front of him. One blow of the execution's axe took off his head. The executioner raised the head for the crowd to see: and said "Behold the head of a traitor!” A traitor who was loyal to his conscience and principles.

Sir Thomas More with daughter after Sentence to death

In October 31, 2000, Pope John Paul II Proclaimed, Sir Thomas More a Saint and Patron of Statesmen and politicians. The Pope said that “What enlightened [Sir More] conscience was the sense that man cannot be sundered from God, nor politics from morality… And it was precisely in defense of the rights of conscience that the example of Thomas More shone brightly.” He is venerated as an imperishable example of moral integrity.

In 1999 the Law Society of Great Britain's Gazette featured Lawyer of the millennium, to recognize outstanding and a most distinguished lawyer. Sir Thomas More topped the Lawyers’ polls as ‘the most significant legal figure of the second Millennium’. Others who came close to such a reputation included, Lord Denning, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Henry II, Sir Edward Coke, William Blackstone and William Wilberforce. Sir More is celebrated as the freedom fighter for Freedom of religion and primacy of individual conscience over the power of the state.

We may not all be celebrated the day we stand for our principles or conscience but Sir More set the example to all people, that we can all create the seldom moment when Morals and virtue triumph over Profit, conscience over public opinion and fear, truth over power, integrity over corruption and Goodness over utility and for sure our actions will be the small hinges that turn the great doors of history towards a society that does not compromise its sacred principles.

In this battle between principles and powers there is no neutral ground every inch of ground claimed by principles is counter claimed by profit. The war is waged in your mind and conscience, you can try and hide from it and say ‘I don’t pick sides’ but at some point life will force you to pick a side. Decide beforehand so that the day someone will ask you for something that you want to keep, you know what you can fight or even die for.  As John Bunyan would say, “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience”