Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T12:30:55.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The London Missionary Society and the Problem of Authority in India, 1798–18331

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Laurence Kitzan
Laurence Kitzan
Affiliation:
Associate professor of history in the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To begin missionary activity in India was not a simple matter. The missionaries there had to face a great deal of opposition not encountered by the missionaries to the South Seas and Africa. In the latter areas the really serious difficulties did not arise until the mission fields had actually been entered. In the case of the Indian missions the missionaries found the first line of osbtruction in England itself, in the London offices of the East India Company. The Company was resolutely opposed to the introduction of missionaries into its own territories, or into any part of India.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 1971 , pp. 457 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2. Latourette, K. S., A History of the Expansion of Christianity (New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1939), III, 277.Google Scholar

3. O'Malley, L. S. S., ed., Modern India and the West (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1941), p. 568Google Scholar. Marshall, P. J., Problems of Empire: Britain and India 1757–1813 (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1968), pp. 71–72.Google Scholar

4. Roman Catholic activity since the sixteenth century, and Danish Protestant in the early eighteenth century. (Latourette, , A History of the Expansion of Christianity, III, 247–284).Google Scholar

5. Ibid., pp. 249–250.

6. Aurangzeb (1618–1707), last of the great Mogul emperors.

7. Tip Sultan (1750–1799), ruler of Mysore, in South India.

8. Philips, C. H., The East India Company (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1961), p. 158.Google Scholar

9. Howse, E. M., Saints in Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1952), pp. 71–72.Google Scholar

10. Potts, E. Daniel, ‘The Baptist Missionaries of Serampore and the Government of India, 1792–1813,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History, (1964), pp. 229–246Google Scholar; Potts, , British Missionaries in India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967).Google Scholar

11. Philips, , The East India Company, p. 159 and n.Google Scholar

12. The Church Missionary Society, led by such important parliamentary personages as William Wilberforce, could not indulge in such illegal practices, and did not enter India until 1814, when it was legal.

13. L. M. S. Home Office Letters, Box II, Folder 5, Envelope A. July 17, 1810. Andrew Fuller of the Baptist Missionary Society to the directors of the L. M. S., advised ‘Gov't seems to be influenced by mere worldly policy; as I suppose must be expected. Hence they are friendly to missionaries out of their territories more than to those within them; and to those who are already settled within, more than to newcomers.’

14. India Office Library (hence I.O.L.), Secret Letters Received from Madras, Secret Committe to Court of Directors, February 17, 1807.

15. Embree, A. S., Charles Grant and British Rule in India (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1962), p. 283.Google Scholar

16. Philips, , The East India Company, pp. 160–162Google Scholar; Embree, , Charles Grant, pp. 241–246.Google Scholar

17. Quoted in Philips, , The East India Company, p. 164.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., p. 165.

19. Ibid. Grant and Parry complained to Dundas of the support of the Hindu festivals by the government, and the collection of the pilgrim taxes and management of temples.

20. L. M. S. Home office Letters, Box II, Folder 4, Envelope B. J. Dyer, Admiralty, to Directors, January 10, 1809.

21. Morison, John, The Fathers and Founders of the London Missionary Society. 2 vols. (London and Paris, n.d.).Google Scholar

22. Transactions of the London Missionary Society, II, 215.Google Scholar

23. Bearce, George D., British Attitudes Towards India 1784–1858 (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 82–83Google Scholar. The best presentation of the evangelical point of view is in Charles Grant's pamphlet, “Observations on the State of Asia,” fully discussed in Embree, Charles Grant Chapter VIII.

24. L.M.S. Minutes, September 10, 1798.

25. L.M.S. Minutes, September 25, 1795.

26. Richter, Julius, A History of Missions in India trans. Moore, Sydney H. (Edinburgh: Oliphant Anderson and Ferrier, 1908), p. 144.Google Scholar

27. Morison, , Founders of the L.M.S., I, 457–522.Google Scholar

28. L.M.S. Home Office Extra, Box I. R. Haldane, D. Bogue, and G. Ewing to Court of Directors December 20, 1796.

29. L.M.S. Minutes, December 27, 1796. Draft letter to the East India Company.

30. L.M.S. Home Office Extra, Box I. East India Company to R. Haldane, D. Bogue and G. Ewing, January 13, 1797.

31. Richter, , History of Missions in India, p. 144.Google Scholar

32. L.M.S. Minutes, May 25, 1797.

33. Apart from paying his passage, the Society gave Forsyth no financial support. Forsyth was a hot-headed, narrow-minded, stubborn, suspicious and extremely proud Scot, whose letters breathed fire and denunciation on friend and foe alike.

34. Carey, W. H., Oriental Christian Biography (Calcutta, 1852), I, 173–181.Google Scholar

35. L.M.S. South India, Journals, Box I. Journal of G. Cran and A. Des Granges, January 27, 1805.

36. Ibid., June 27, 1805.

37. Ibid., July 12, 1805.

38. Ibid., July 14, 1805.

39. Ibid., July 18 and 20, 1805.

40. L.O.L. General Records, Public Letters from Madras, February 12, 1806.

41. L.M.S. South India, General, Box I, Folder 1, Envelope B. G. Cran and A. Des Granges to Directors, October 16, 1805.

42. Greenberg, Michael, British Trade and the Opening of China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1951, p. 10.Google Scholar

43. L.M.S. Minutes, February 7, 1806.

44. I.O.L. General Records, Public Letters from Madras, March 15, 1811.

45. L.M.S. South India, General, Box I, Folder 1 Envelope C. G. Cran to Directors, February 10, 1808.

46. L.M.S. South India, Journals, Box I. Journal of J. Hands, February 20, 1810.

47. Register of Missionaries, Deputations, Etc., From 1706 to 1923 (London, 1923).Google Scholar

48. L.M.S. South India, Journals, Box I. Journal of J. Hands, March 27, 1810.

49. Potts, “The Baptist Missionaries of Serampore,” pp. 229–246.

50. Lovett, Richard, History of the London Missionary Society 1795–1895 (London: Henry Frowde, 1899), II, 15.Google Scholar

51. L.M.S. South India, Journals, Box I. Journal of J. Gordon and E. Pritchett, November 2, 1812.

52. L.M.S. South India, Journals, Box I. Journal of E. Pritchett, December 7, 1811.

53. Philips, , The East India Company, pp. 181–192Google Scholar. Howse, E. M., Saints in Politics, pp. 82–93.Google Scholar

54. L.M.S. South India, General, Box I, Folder 3, Envelope D. Quoted in a letter by J. Thompson to the Directors, May 12, 1812.

55. L.M.S. South India, General, Box I, Folder 3, Envelope D. J. Thompson to Directors, June 13, 1812.

56. Coupland, Reginald, Wilberforce (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), p. 385.Google Scholar

57. Howse, , Saints in Politics, pp. 82–93.Google Scholar

58. Ibid., p. 84.

59. L.M.S. Home Office Letters, Box II, Folder 6, Envelope A. Directors to S. Perceval, April 26, 1812.

60. L.M.S. Minutes, May 14 and November 30, 1812.

61. Howse, , Saints, in Politics, p. 92.Google Scholar

62. SirKaye, John, Christianity in India (London: Smith, Elder, 1856), p. 262Google Scholar, says that Whitbread was “half-ashamed of it” and “begged to be understood as having no opinion on the subject.”

63. Soon to be created Lord Hastings.

64. L.M.S. Minutes, January 23, 1813.

65. L.M.S. Minutes, February 8, 1813.

66. L.M.S. South India, General, Box II, Folder 2, Envelope E. J. Dawson to Directors, October 4, 1815.

67. Gogerly, George, The Pioneers (London: John Snow and Co., n.d.), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

68. Ibid., p. 13.

69. L.M.S. South India, Canarese, Box II, Folder 4, Envelope C. W. Campbell to W. Orme, October, 1829.

70. L.M.S. South India, Canarese, Box III, Folder 1, Envelope B. W. Reeve to Directors, October 23, 1830. L.M.S. South India, Canarese, Box III, Folder 2, Envelope B. W. Taylor and W. Beynon to W. A. Hankey, May 11, 1831.

71. Ibid.

72. L.M.S. South India, Canarese, Box I, Folder 4, Envelope C. W. Campbell to W. A. Hankey, July 30, 1825.

73. Richter, , History of Missions in India, p. 154.Google Scholar

74. Ibid.

75. Lushington, Charles, The History, Design, and Present State of the Religious Benevolent and Charitable Institutions, founded by the British in Calcutta and its Vicinity (Calcutta, 1824), lists thirty-three of these.Google Scholar

76. Ibid.

77. L.M.S. South India, Canarese, Box I, Folder 1, Envelope A. W. Reeve to G. Burder, January 29, 1818. L.M.S. South India, Canarese, Box I, Folder 1, Envelope B. W. Reeve to G. Burder, August 27, 1818.

78. Gleig, G. R., The Life of Sir Thomas Munro (London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 1831), II, 114–120Google Scholar. A minute, dated November 15, 1822, while Munro was governor of Madras.

79. L.M.S. South India, Tamil, Box II, Folder 2, Envelope B. H. Crisp to W. A. Hankey and G. Burder, February 23, 1826. L.M.S. Travancore, Box I. Folder 1, Envelope A.C. Mead to G. Burder, January 19, 1818.

80. I.O.L. General Records, Secret Letters Received from Madras, July 26, 1825.

81. Ibid., July 18, 1828.

82. Unlike the South Sea islands, which the missionaries tried to keep as isolated as possible from European contact.

83. L.M.S. Home Office Extra, Box I. L.M.S. to E.I. Co., December 20, 1796.

84. L.M.S. South India, Canarese, Box II, Folder 4, Envelope, B. “Admonitory Hints by the Directors of the London Missionary Society to its Missionaries in the East Indies,” 1828.Google Scholar

85. Transactions of the L.M.S., II, 464Google Scholar. “Instructions of the Missionary Society to the Missionaries Destined to Labour at Surat and the Countries Adjacent in the year 1805.”

86. Ingham, Kenneth, Reformers in India 1793–1833 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956).Google Scholar

87. L.M.S. South India, Canarese, Box II, Folder 4, Envelope, B. “Admonitory Hints ‥.,” 1828Google Scholar.The Society in England, however, did participate in the campaign in 1833 to force the Government of India to drop its stewardship of Hindu temples. When the India officials procrastinated in carrying out the wishes of the Board of Control in this matter, one of the prominent directors of the Society, William Alers Hankey, helped lead the campaign which forced them to adhere to their instructions. Lovett, , History of the L.M.S., II, 662–667.Google Scholar

88. L.M.S. North India, Bengal, Box III, Folder 1, Envelope D. J. D. Pearson to H. Townley, April 7, 1831.

89. Campbell, William, British India (London: John Snow, 1839), pp. 29–45.Google Scholar

90. Ibid. Most missionaries consistently missed the point of the contention of the East India Company, which was not that Christianity itself was dangerous, but that the fear of forceful conversion to Christianity was.

91. Ibid., p. 43.

92. Ibid., pp. 42–43.

93. Richter, , A History of Missions in India, pp. 204–205.Google Scholar

94. Gogerly, , The Pioneers, pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

95. L.M.S. South India, Telegu, Box I, Folder 5, Envelope B. W. Howell to Directors, June 22, 1832. O'malley, L.S.S., The Indian Civil Service 1601–1930 (London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd., 1965), p. 76.Google Scholar

96. Ibid., October 3, 1832.

97. The diwan was the prime minister and head of the administration.

98. Agur, C. H., Church History of Travancore (Madras, 1903), p. 536.Google Scholar

99. Ibid. There were in Travancore many Roman Catholics and Syrian Christians.

100. Robinson, William, Ringeltaube the Rishi (Sheffield: The Sheffield Independent Press, Ltd., 1902), pp. 98–100.Google Scholar

101. Mateer, S., The Land of Charity (London: John Snow and Co., 1871), p. 267.Google Scholar

102. L.M.S. Travancore, Box I, Folder 1, Envelope A. C. Mead to G. Burder, April 4, 1818.

103. L.M.S. Travancore, Box I, Folder 1, Envelope A. C. Mead to G. Burder, October 25, 1818.

104. Mateer, , Land of Charity, p. 267Google Scholar. I.O.L. Madras Political Letters Received, January 26, 1819.

105. L.M.S. Travancore, Box I, Folder 3, Envelope D. “A Report of the Neyoor Mission ”, July, 1829.

106. Mateer, , Land of Charity, pp. 268–276.Google Scholar

107. Ibid., p. 278.

108. Ibid.

109. Agur, , Church History of Travancore, pp. 779–782.Google Scholar

110. L.M.S. Travancore, Box I, Folder 3, Envelope D. “A Report of the Neyoor Mission”.

111. Ibid.

112. Ibid.

113. Ibid.

114. Mateer, , Land of Charity, pp. 280–281.Google Scholar

115. Morrell, W. P., Britain in the Pacific Islands (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960)Google Scholar. France used the L.M.S.-induced expulsion of French Catholic missionaries to launch the policy that led to the annexation of Tahiti in 1843.

116. Macmillan, W. M., Bantu, Boer, and Briton: The Making of the South African Native Problem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963)Google Scholar, revised edition, concentrates very heavily on the work of John Philip of the L.M.S.

117. Mellor, G. R., British Imperial Trusteeship 1783–1850 (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1951), pp. 90 ff.Google Scholar

118. Morrison had the strong support of the Company's servants in China. Correspondence about Morrison found in I.O.L. Factory Records, China, 1808–1833, and discussed in Stifler, Susan R., “The Language Students of the East India Company's Canton Factory”, Journal of the North China Royal Asiatic Society, 69 (1938), pp. 46–82.Google Scholar

119. The somewhat inflated estimate of the Serampore missionaries found in the Epilogue of Potts, British Baptist Missionaries in India, is typical of their primacy in the public eye.