CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946

7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946

1/65

i

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN

AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946

By

EMMA JOLLY

Research Dissertation of 16,279 words

submitted to

Sheffield Hallam University

in partial fulfilment for the award of

MA History: Imperialism and Culture

under the supervision of

Dr. Clare Midgley

12 March 2014


2/65

ii

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Cultural imperialism at home? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House, 1932-

1946

By EMMA JOLLY

Supervisor: Dr. Clare Midgley

Between 1932 and 1946, Mary Trevelyan was employed by the Student Christian Movement

to act as Warden of Student Movement House in London, an international club for students.

This period was one of national and racial tension, both across the Empire and within the

metropole. By the interwar years, Britain, and London in particular, were home to a number

of colonial independence thinkers, activists and movements. As Student Movement House

welcomed those from overseas, with no racial or national barriers, Trevelyan and the Student

Christian Movement were aware of the role the club could play in alleviating colonial

negativity towards Britain by fostering a culture of international friendship. The dissertation

critically assesses the changing nature of interwar Christian mission through the cultural

imperialist framework and looks at accusations of a Christian civilizing mission, further

examining the impact on this of an increasingly domestic focus within the metropole. This

dissertation examines the Student Christian Movement, Trevelyan and her work at Student

Movement House in the context of cultural imperialism in the interwar period, with particular

reference to attitudes in the metropole towards overseas students. In doing so, British racism

and discrimination to overseas students at this time will be considered alongside a growing

cultural emphasis on internationalism.


3/65

iii

Contents

Introduction

1

Chapter 1 - The Empire at Home 1918-1946

8

Chapter 2 - British Christian Mission and the shifting role of the Student Christian Movement

20

Chapter 3 - Civilizing Mission? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House 1932-1946

33

Conclusion

50

Bibliography

53


4/65

1

Introduction

The theory of cultural imperialism when applied to Christian mission is discussed

typically in relation to missionaries working in the Empire. Yet, the interwar years saw a

reduction in missionary field work and an increase in colonial and non-British visitors to the

metropole. These circumstances provided the British mission movement with the opportunity

to focus their work at home, through institutions like Student Movement House (SMH) in

London, one of the most active metropolitan centres in the interwar years for colonial

visitors.

This dissertation assesses the extent to which Mary Trevelyan (1897-1983) and her

work as Warden of SMH between 1932 and 1946 represent cultural imperialism at home.

SMH was a club for overseas and British students and had been established in 1917 by the

Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (SCM). This organization was

formed in 1898 and known as SCM from 1904. From evangelical origins, the SCM soon

became inter-denominational and moved from focusing on Foreign Mission to a broader

scope covering all the great Christian interests1and a global vision, in which British students

who make friends . . . of people of other races and other nations are often delivered once for

all from racial prejudice and all exclusive and narrow forms of racism.2

The significance to the cultural imperialism debate of SMHswork in London during

the interwar years has not previously been explored to a great extent. As SMH Warden

between 1932 and 1946, Mary Trevelyans professional contribution is worthy of

examination from an imperial history perspective. Her personal beliefs, family and social

1

A. Herbert Gray, The Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 43, no. 12, 1932, pp. 558-561.

2ibid., p. 559.


5/65

2

connections are also significant. Besides her social connections, Trevelyan had a strong

Christian background, with her father and both grandfathers serving as Anglican clergymen.

In assessing her work between 1932 and 1946, this dissertation will explore practical

Christian mission in the metropole along with wider changes in British imperialism through

the work of one individual.

The dissertation aims to achieve this by asking to what extent the SCM moved away

from its original focus on a possibly imperially-oriented overseas mission to concentrating on

equal relations among global Christians, how effective it was in promoting Christianity to

those from overseas, and in what way its work and aims were reflected in the work of Mary

Trevelyan. Was Mary Trevelyan condescending? And were her views reminiscent of the

attitudes and behaviour of earlier missionaries? It will also ask how those views were shaped

by Trevelyans awareness of her familys historic and contemporary connections with

imperial historic thinking, and by her personal travels.

Much of the existing historiography on cultural imperialism in this period draws on

the arguments of Edward Said in his works, Orientalismand Culture and Imperialism3.Said

aimed to show how historical conceptions of the Orient were connected to contemporary

political concepts of the East. In seeking to demonstrate how the West used examples of

Orientalist culture to subordinate the Arab world, Said highlighted three, interdependent

forms, or senses, of orientalism: the formal or academic sense, the ontological sense, and the

sense of power through discourse. He argued that colonial rulers used their knowledge of

their subject people to control them4. Said argued that this training in orientalism was

regarded as essential to the imperialist mind5. The second form of orientalism is that of

3Edward W. Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd,

1978); Culture and Imperialism. (London: Vintage, 1994).4ibid., p. 213.5ibid., p. 215.


6/65

3

ontological distinction (self/other), with the orient as the opposite of occident. British saw

themselves as distinct from Orientals or The Other.

Said developed this line of thought further in his work, Culture and Imperialism, but

was heavily criticized. Kate Teltscher, for example, argues that Orientalismfails to elucidate

fully the relationship between orientalism and imperialism in that the ontological form is too

simplistic: In recent years, colonial discourse analysis has moved away from the

Self/Other.6In contrast, Teltscher seeks to define a much less stable sense of European self;

an identity that is shifting, various, and responsive to the demands of domestic politics and

religious affiliation.7Nevertheless, it is important to be aware of the Self/Other debate when

considering the work of Mary Trevelyan, to note the interaction between her and overseas

students, and consider how this affected her work and views in relation to Christian mission

and Empire.

More recently, Peter Cain has argued that Said's Orientalismshows respect for

Western culture, but neglects how Briton's elite imperialists ideas of themselves were

defined by ideas of their own history8. Cain is conscious of Saids theories when placing

Christian mission work within the cultural imperialism discourse, arguing that the liberal

civilizing mission propounded by thinkers such as Thomas Macaulay was live and well at

the Cape in the 1870s and 1880s where Christian enthusiasm helped to drive a civilizing

mission that looked for root-and-branch reform of African tribal society.9However, this

connection between Macaulays civilizing mission and the work ofChristians is challenged

6Kate Teltscher,India Inscribed: European and British Writing on India 1600-1800(Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1995), p. 7.7ibid., p. 6.8

Peter J. Cain, Character, Ordered Liberty, and the Mission to Civilise: British Moral Justification of Empire,18701914, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2012, pp. 557-578.9ibid., p. 558.


7/65

4

by Catherine Halls view that Christianity no longer held the key to civilisation via

assimilation: his [Macaulays] was a secular vision.10

Ryan Dunch has questioned the usefulness of placing the modern Christian

missionary movement within the cultural imperial framework. In contrast, he looks at the

cultural dynamics of globalization in relation to the role of missions. Arguing that the

missionary movement is one aspect in a globalizing modernity that has altered Western

societies as well as non-Western ones11, Dunch seeks to apply the globalization discourse to

the missionary movement in order to illuminate the process of modern cultural

globalization.12This theory of globalization in the modern missionary movement can be

adapted to the work of the SCM and Mary Trevelyan in the metropole.

Dunch agrees with Said that the more or less global influence of Western cultural

forms has come about historically through a coercive process13. However, he questions

novelists and scholars depiction of missionaries as, narrow-minded chauvinists whose

presence and preaching destroyed indigenous cultures and opened the way for the extension

of colonial rule.14Dunch does concede that, in practice many references to the cultural

imperialism of missionaries mean simply that some missionaries held condescending or

racist attitudes towards the people among whom they lived.15This condescension may be

linked to the civilizing mission (perhaps unwitting in the behaviour of some missionaries),

and is one of the aspects that will be explored in this paper, when considering whether there

was evidence of such attitudes amongst British people in the metropole, and with Mary

Trevelyan specifically.

10Catherine Hall,Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain(New Have: Yale University Press, 2012),

p. 213.11Ryan Dunch, Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Cultural Theory, Christian Missions, and Global Modernity,

History and Theory, vol. 41, no. 3, 2002, p. 301.12ibid., p. 301.13

ibid., p. 303.14ibid., p. 307.15ibid., p. 309.


8/65

5

Dunch separates mission work from imperial mercantilism, criticizing those like R.

Keith Schoppa who have linked missionaries with political or economic forces.16Dunch

observes that this ignores the fact that missionaries were not directly linked to the traders

and economic interests of their home countries. . . the interest of missions were often

diametrically opposed to those of their compatriots in government or commerce . . .17John

Tomlinson, however, perhaps summarizes the current consensus when he defends cultural

imperialism from some of Dunchs criticisms, arguing that it is more accurate to speak of the

discourse of cultural imperialism than to think of it as a coherent body of ideas shared by a

group of theoretically specifiable speakers.18

In considering Trevelyan and SMH within the framework of cultural imperialism, this

dissertation will look at whether the civilizing mission existed, albeit at a weaker level, in

the interwar mission movement. Furthermore, it will demonstrate that Mary Trevelyans

work was to an extent separate from the wider Christian mission and that she operated less

within the cultural imperialistic framework than in a developing culture of internationalism.

The dissertation also considers the divisions that remained between Christian missionary and

imperialistic outlooks.

A variety of sources and a varied approach to research were used for this dissertation.

Considerable primary material exists on Mary Trevelyan: in the SCM archive, and in letters

written to her, her autobiography19and other writing. The methodology of this paper is based

around cultural history and draws upon secondary sources, as well as primary sources such as

autobiography, SMH papers from within the SCM archives, along with news reports and

comments in contemporary journals and newspapers. This dissertation will consider Mary

16R. Keith Schoppa,Revolution and Its Past: Identities and Changes in Modern Chinese History (Upper Saddle

River: Prentice Hall, 2002), p.45.17Dunch, Beyond Cultural Imperialism, p. 308.18

John Tomlinson, Cultural Imperialism: a critical introduction (London: Pinter, 1991), p 69.19Mary Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth:An account of the author's experiences as Warden of theStudent Movement House (London: Faber & Faber, 1942).


9/65

6

Trevelyans middle-class upbringing and her gender in relation to her outlook and work. In

approaching the autobiography of Mary Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth:An account

of the author's experiences as Warden of the Student Movement House, it is important to

consider that it was based on a diary that she kept during the period but that it was written in

1942 to speak to a contemporary audience. Published while Trevelyan was still Warden of

SMH, her autobiography highlights the successful aspects of SMH, with a bias towards

herself and the SMH rather than the full complexities of the lives of overseas students.

I have also consulted unpublished letters sent from the poet and SMH patron, T. S.

Eliot, to Trevelyan from 1940. One of the main problems with these is that they do not

include letters from Trevelyan. However, they do act as a useful counterpoise to Trevelyans

autobiography and other writing by her in contemporary SMH literature, journal articles and

books. As these were private letters, they reflect a more personal view of Trevelyans work

and attitudes than those presented in her self-aware autobiography, intended for wide

contemporary readership. In this way, the letters have the potential to provide more unwitting

testimony into Trevelyan than some of the more official sources.

Many of these records, including the news reports, are limited by their class base.

Almost all of the documents consulted were written by members of the middle or upper

classes. The dissertation would have benefitted from further insight into Mary Trevelyan and

SMH by former employees, neighbours or student club members from either contemporary

sources or in the form of memoir. I was able to find a contemporary letter from the later

renowned academic and influential political West Indian activist, C. L. R. James, who at the

time was a visiting student. However, greater balance would have been achieved from similar

material from other contemporaries in the 1932-46 period. The secondary sources include the

work of historians of the interwar years and theories of culture such as Shompa Lahiri,

Rozina Visram, and Laura Tabili.


10/65

7

The first chapter looks at the Empire at Home from 1918 through the period of

Trevelyans tenure as SMH Warden. As SMH was intended to promote international

understanding and friendship in the wake of war, this chapter explores the changes in the

metropole from this date and will examine attitudes to the Empire from within the metropole

and the presence there of colonial people, while looking at changes in metropolitan society

and culture between the end of the First World War and the end of the Second World War.

This chapter provides the context for understanding the work of Mary Trevelyan at SMH and

that of her employer, the SCM, between 1932 and 1946.

The second chapter examines British Christian Mission in the same period, looking at

how its focus changed and at the role played in this process by the Student Christian

Movement and associated individuals. The interwar SCM is assessed in the context of

Christian mission as a whole, and consideration given to whether missionary attitudes to

Empire reflected those of politicians and commerce. This chapter looks further at culture in

the metropole through the lens of Christianity whilst examining cultural imperialism in the

form of religion by exploring the background to Christian mission work and thought in 1932-

46.

The final chapter explores the work of Mary Trevelyan, SMH Warden from 1932 to

1946. The argument looks at whether a civilizing mission was at work in the metropole

through the SCMs work with overseas students, specifically through the example of Student

Movement House (SMH) between 1932 and 1946, and its Warden. This is discussed with

reference to accusations of racism and condescension, and cultural imperialism. The chapter

concludes with an examination of the extent to which secular imperial values as well as those

of Christianity were transmitted to the students, particular in light of Trevelyans personal

background, and also looks at the impact of this cultural imperialism or exchange in the wider

Empire.


11/65

8

Chapter One

The Empire at Home, 1918-1946

This chapter examines changes in the metropole following the First World War. From there,

the argument focuses on imperial subjects in the metropole, looking at the longstanding

representation of black colonial people, alongside black and mixed race Britons. After

considering how London, in particular, was a difficult environment for black colonial

peoples, the last section explores the lives of overseas students in the metropole and the

hostile reception with which many were met.

Changes in the Metropole

Up to the Great War, Britain celebrated its imperial imagery as strong, masculine and

victorious through the media of juvenile literature, football cards, and (from 1904) Empire

Day20. There is no consensus as to whether this imperial image continued after the war. John

Mackenzie and John Springhall21point to growing public interest in Empire Day throughout

the interwar years22. At this annual event, Britons celebrated the value of Empire to the

metropole as a victorious, military nation23. Such celebration and use of specific imagery can

be seen as a form of cultural imperialism at home. However, Bernard Porter questions

whether most Britons accepted a strong imperial vision of Britain, arguing, 'Culture coloured

British imperialism, but was not responsible for it, or significantly affected byit.'24

In support of Porters argument is the emerging interwar culture of anti-colonialism

and anti-racism. This developed alongside a rise in political activity, both within the

20Jim English, Empire Day in Britain, 1904-1958, The Historical Journal, vol. 49, no. 1, 2006, pp. 247-276.21J. O. Springhall, Lord Meath, Youth, and Empire ,Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 5, no. 4, 1970, pp.

97-111.22ibid., p 107.23John Mackenzie ed.,Imperialism and Popular Culture (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), p.

168.24Bernard Porter, The Lion's Share: A Short History of British Imperialism, 1850-1995 (3rdedn., London:

Pearson, 1996), p. 10.


12/65

9

metropole, such as through the growth of the British Union of Fascists, the Communist Party

of Great Britain and the Young Communist League, and across the Empire in colonial

independence movements, like the India League. Some of this activism contained anti-

imperialistic elements or was based on an anti-empire agenda. Immigration from Empire, not

least of students, enabled the development of these movements in the metropole. There had

been noticeable activity among educated Indians in Britain for some years with many

students joining the India League in the 1930s.25

In contrast to independence activists, pro-imperialists in the metropole were

enthusiastic about emerging peace movements, which some interpreted as conduits for a

fraternity of colonies and dominions under British leadership. Porter argues that one form of

imperial culture in the late twentieth century, 'came close - extraordinarily - to pacifist

internationalism.' He supports this by explaining that British culture was not dominated by

empire-related values. This essay argues that dominant values such as internationalism were

at work earlier in British culture and that peace ideologies grew alongside, and in response to,

the anticolonial movements of the interwar years.

Although there was evidence of military imperial imagery in some areas of British

culture and society, in others there was a focus on domestic concerns. Adrian Bingham writes

that after 1918, an ethos of domesticity pervaded popular culture26. This echoes the work

of Alison Light who argued that there was a move towards a more domestic socio-cultural

ethos27. As part of the domestic ethos, leading Britons looked to the past for a firm sense of

national identity, reviving the concept of Englishness, where England (or, interchangeably,

Britain) was reimagined as a nation fit for heroes.

25Rozina Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: Indians in Britain 1700-1947 (London: Pluto, 1986), p. 181.26Adrian Bingham, An era of domesticity? Histories of women and gender in interwar Britain, Cultural and

Social History,vol. 1, no. 2, 2004,pp. 225-233.27Alison Light,Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism Between the Wars (New York:

Routledge, 1991), p. 137.


13/65

10

However, many in Britains culturalelite shied away from a militaristic national

image. Liberal middle-class intellectuals, such as the biographer Lytton Strachey, had been

among the more than 16,000 pacifists of the war.28After four long years of fighting, more

Britons now sympathized with pacifist views: numbers grew of peace organisations with an

international outlook, such as War Resisters International, Womens International League

for Peace and Freedom, and the No More War Movement. Pacifism enjoyed popularity

among students: in February 1933, an Oxford Union debate carried the motion, That this

House will in no circumstances fight for its King and countryby 275 votes to 153 and

similar debates took place in universities across Britain.29

At the same time, Bingham argues that not all interwar culture looked inwards. He

points to contemporary popular themes of the exotic and adventurous nature of Empire, citing

Billie Melman and her discussion of desert romances30. The 1920s saw heroes made of

imperial adventurers like Gertrude Bell (1868-1926), a multi-lingual archaeologist and

traveller who served as a political officer in the Arabian Desert during the war. She was also

the half-sister of G. M. Trevelyans sister-in-law, Mary Katherine Bell. This cultural presence

of Empire in the metropole was thus imagined and represented in different forms by authors,

advertisers and filmmakers of the period.

The interwar vision of an idealised Britain married with the new internationalism

which held a reimagined nation at its heart. This peaceful ideal was placed in a wider

international context, with Britain being seen as a home of international friendship. One key

figure in this aspect of interwar culture was the academic, and second cousin of Mary

Trevelyan, George Macaulay Trevelyan. As a writer of major narrative histories of Britain

28David Cesarani, Antony Robin, Jeremy Kushner, The Internment of Aliens in Twentieth Century Britain

(London: Taylor & Francis), p. 55.29

Martin Caedel, The King and Country Debate, 1933: Student Politics, Pacifism and the Dictators, TheHistorical Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, 1979, pp. 397-422.

30Bingham, An era of domesticity?, p. 226.


14/65

11

and a contributor to national newspapers, Trevelyan was an influential man in interwar

academia and society. Perhaps his longest lasting influence in terms of the English culture

has been with the National Trust and the Youth Hostel Association (YHA). David Cannadine

argues that by the early 1930s, Trevelyan had, established himself as one of the foremost

activists in the battle to save the English countryside . . . and that he was so socially

significant that his name conferred great prestige on a new and uncertain organisation 31, the

National Trust.

Trevelyans presidency of YHA was motivated by his internationalist ideals. In 1939,

The Timesreported that the YHA, represented the best kind of internationalism, for its

membership enabled one to exchange hospitality with the hikers of other countries, and so to

learn to appreciate and understand them in a way which would lay the surest foundations of

peace32.Beyond secular culture, the internationalist, fraternal and peace ideologies would

also influence missionary thinking and those running student organizations in the period.

Trevelyans work and ideology was influenced to a certain extent by his great uncle

and namesake, the historian Thomas Babington Macaulay. Catherine Hall writes of

MacaulaysHistory of Englandand the sense of Englishness this created, which, she argues,

indicates Macaulays view that, England was a country suited for empire and that he saw as

the legitimate protector of thosewho cannot protect themselves.33This fitted with

contemporary cinematic representations of Britain as an international force of justice.

Cannadine argued that, in contrast, Macaulays great nephew remained, equivocal and

uncertain about the British Empire34and later rejoiced in the independence of India.35

Thus, Trevelyan was a greater proponent of international friendship than of Empire.

31David Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan: a life in history,(London: Harper Collins, 1992), p. 157.32The Times, 8 May 1939, p. 11.33Catherine Hall,Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012),

p. 283.34Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan, p. 92.35ibid., p. 222.


15/65

12

British cultural domination in this period was challenged not just by political activism

in the Empire, but from across the Atlantic, as shown by the growing importance of

American films. Within Britain, there were cultural challenges from socialist writers eager to

emphasize working-class experiences of the time. J. B. Priestley, for example, in his English

Journey(1934) represented Englishness as 'industrial, provincial, populist, and hostile to

traditional privilege.'36Nevertheless, the traditional cultural dominance of the middle and

upper classes remained, as did the pivotal roles of religious institutions, the educational

establishment, and literature. Although F.R. Leavis argued although only a few were capable

of appreciating high culture, this minority keep alive the subtlest and most perishable parts

of the tradition.37This was a powerful minority, which included key cultural figures of the

interwar years such as G. M. Trevelyan.

The development of international fraternal ideologies and peace movements would

affect cultural attitudes within the metropole towards the Empire and to the imperial citizens

who now lived in Britain. However, beyond the rarefied world of middle class intelligentsia,

the imperial subjects, notably those who were black and Asian, were experiencing a more

hostile aspect of British culture. Across a variety of communities, ethnic minorities as well as

those of the white settler nations were not experiencing the internationalist ideal. Other

Britons held less welcoming views and demonstrated them actively.

Imperial subjects in the metropole

Popular culture affected the way those in the metropole viewed the Empire and colonial

people. Yet, attitudes towards those from overseas, including students and those from outside

the Britains colonies and dominions, were arguably more affected by the events of recent

36

John Baxendale, I had seen a lot of Englands: J B Priestley, Englishness and the People,HistoryWorkshop Journal,vol. 2001, no. 51, 2001, pp. 87-111.37F. R. Leavis,Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture (Cambridge: The Minority Press, 1930), pp. 3-5.


16/65

13

years, such as the 1919 seaport riots and increased immigration, both during and immediately

following the war.

Before 1919, Visram argues, there were established communities in seaport cities,

inhabited by Indian merchant seamen (lascars), as well as other black and Asian maritime

workers from across the Empire.38Many married local women. As these communities were

often separate from other parts of their cities, inhabitants mixed rarely with white Britons

beyond. Instead, as Laura Tabili illustrates, Bound by personalities, residents of these

enclaves proved resistant to the imposition of hegemonic racial barriers, as well as to more

overt intervention.39Tabili argues that this only changed in June 1919 when riots erupted in

seaports at Liverpool, the Bristol channel, Newport, Cardiff and Barry and African, West

Indian and Asian ex-servicemen and sailors were attacked: Crowds of white men and

women invaded racially mixed neighbourhoods, pillaging homes, putting several people in

the hospital and a pair in the morgue.40

A combination of high unemployment in post war industrial seaports, along with the

presence of increased numbers of black and Asian men in the metropole, led to the racial

tension that created the 1919 riots. Bourne argues that, returning white soldiers resented the

presence of black men, especially those who had found employment and married white

women . . 41The Timesclaimed that 'the familiar association between white women and

negroes' was a 'provocative cause' behind the riots42. Associated with this was an increase in

mixed-race marriages. James Walvin painted a negative picture of life in the interwar years

for mixed-race children of working-class black men in 'London, Liverpool, Swansea, Cardiff

and Manchester', who were raised in straitened financial circumstances, often 'on Public

38Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p, 190.39Laura Tabili, We Ask for British Justice. Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain (New

York: Cornell University Press, 1994), p. 135.40

ibid., p. 136.41Stephen Bourne, Black Poppies,History Today, vol. 63, no. 10, 2013, pp. 52-56.42The Times, Friday June 13 1919, p. 9.


17/65

14

Assistance'.43However, Tabili argues that, While some interracial couples encountered

social ostracism, others were accepted, even living in the same house with the wives parents,

a common British working-class residential pattern.44

Britain's imperial population also existed beyond seaports. Walvin notes that, as early

as 1910, Parliament identified a second group[s] of Negroes . . . mainly West Indians, who

had emigrated to England in the hope of improving their lot . . .'45Tabili argues that a

multicultural Black political identity emerged among working men in interwar in Britain.46

This was alongside a multicultural Black British identity which developed in a process of

struggle against assaults by white elites . .47Despite some co-operation, particularly after the

Italian invasion of Abyssinia, disparate factions existed in the metropole and there were,

'rivalries among Africans, among West Indians, among black students, black workers and

frequently among all groups together'48during the 1930s and 40s.

Also in the metropole were Sikh street hawkers from the Punjab, who arrived in the

1920s and 30s, andfactory workers.49Visram points to the 1932 Indian National Congress

survey of, all Indians outside India[which] estimated that there were 128 Indians in the

United Kingdom. Whether seamen, many of whom were constantly travelling in and out of

the country, were recorded in this number is unstated. This figure seems small, especially

when considered alongside statistics, such as, It is estimated that before 1947 about 1,000

Indian doctors practised throughout Britain, 200 of them in London alone . .50Thus, it is

43James Walvin,Black and White: The Negro and English Society 1555-1945 (London: Allen Lane, 1973), p.

210.44Tabili,We Ask for British Justice, p. 145.45Walvin,Black and White,p. 202.46Tabili, We Ask for British Justice, p. 159.47ibid., p. 160.48

Walvin,Black and White, p. 211.49Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 192.50ibid., p. 191.


18/65

15

likely the number was considerably higher. Bourne argues that, It has been estimated that in

1914 there were at least 10,000 black Britons, many of African and West Indian descent.51

Men and women from across the Empire had given their energies and, in many cases,

their lives to the Britains war. Many survivors resented the toll this had taken and the

apparent lack of appreciation shown to them by the Mother Country. However, black men

rejected attempts at state-sponsored repatriation, preferring Britain to a life of colonial

exploitation and subordination.52As a result, by 1918, Britains black population is believed

to have trebled to 30,000.53According to Tabili, many invoked their war service and,

refashioned imperial rhetoric to defend their rights as British subjects.54In this way, these

former soldiers echoed the language of the independence movements. Bourne quotes John

Archer, Britain's first black Mayor, whose speech at the inaugural meeting of the African

Progress Union argued that black Britons should, claim our rightful place within the Empire

. . . if we are good enough to be brought to fight the wars of the country we are good enough

to receive the benefits of country.55

Archers resentment at being treated like a lesser citizen mirrored a wider

dissatisfaction within the metropole and out in the Empire. Colonial nationalists in the

metropole were supported in their anti-imperial stance by communists who, Shompa Lahiri

argued, encouraged foreign antipathy (through students in Britain) to the Empire56. Walvin

highlighted an emerging 'black intellectual group' of the 1930s, which, he argued, 'was to

exercise a political influence out of all proportion to its numbers in the years after 1945.'

Much of this activity was based in London and a number of the most notable activists,

51Bourne, Black Poppies, p. 52.52Tabili, We Ask for British Justice, p. 138.53Bourne, Black Poppies, p.52.54Tabili,We Ask for British Justice, p. 137.55

Bourne, Black Poppies, p. 56.56Shompa Lahiri,Indians in Britain: Anglo-Indians Encounters, Race and Identity, 1880-1930

(Cass, 2000), p. 179.


19/65

16

including Jomo Kenyatta, C. L. R. James and Paul Robeson, would have some connection to

Student Movement House in the 1930s, when Mary Trevelyan was Warden. Walvin wrote

that at this time, 'Black nationalists from Africa, the West Indies and the United States found

in London a focus for their actions, and a source of black co-operation.'57In uniting against

racial prejudice, black people in Britain forced some social change, including the removal of

the colour bar in the British armed forces in 19 October 193958.

As a result of emigration and war mobility, increasing numbers of Britons knew

someone who lived in a colony or dominion. There, white colonial settlers developed their

own imperial identity. Angela Woollacott observes that, 'Australians knew themselves to be

parts of the British Empire in both amorphous and specific ways', such as by celebrating

Empire Day.59However, it is less clear that Britons in the metropole considered white settler

population to be as British as they were, or to be equals in Empire. Discussing the early

twentieth century, Woollacott points to evidence of a condescension toward colonials.60It is

useful to consider whether this can be seen as a form of racism. Women from the Empire

were liable to be further discriminated against on grounds of gender: Woollacott argues that

Australian women in the period suffered 'sexist prejudice'.61

Imperial subjects in Britain often held negative views of the Empire from their

position within the metropole. Anti-colonialist media, likeNegro Worker in 1932, wrote that,

British imperialist agents in the colonies, such as the Church of England missionary, try:

to create the impression among native peoples that no matter what

injustices they suffer in the colonies, in England a warm welcome

awaits them! . . every Negro, Indian, Arab or other coloured person

57Walvin,Black and White,p. 211.58ibid.,p. 212.59

Angela Woollacott,To Try Her Fortune in London (Oxford: OUP, 2001), p. 148.60ibid., p. 96.61ibid., p. 96.


20/65

17

who has ever lived in England knows from actual experience that all

this missionary twaddle is nothing but a lie.62

It was views such as this that interwar Christians such as Mary Trevelyan were eager to

challenge, particularly among the, often politically active, overseas student population.

Experiences of overseas students in Britain

During the interwar years, not all immigrants or visitors to Britain originated in the Empire.

Students came from a variety of nations: there were Jewish refugees from Europe as well as

visitors of varied professions from the USA.

Middle-class students, mainly from India, Africa and the Caribbean, were one of the

diverse groups of colonial migrants in Britain during this period63. Their incomes varied:

according to Visram, many Indians lived in insufficient funds64. The presence of such

foreign middle-class students had an impact on large cities and also the academic Oxford,

Cambridge, Edinburgh and Durham. The views of foreign studentswere affected daily by

their experience in Britain and their treatment by Britons. Lahiri argues that, Britains impact

on Indian students was therefore affected by external factors such as discrimination and

financial difficulties.65This supports Visrams argument that Indian students, particularly,

had problems, compounded by religious, cultural and dietary practices. So many students

felt lonely and isolated.66But, she notes, . . . during the 1930s and 1940s many Indian

medical students stayed in Britain to practise as doctors67Lahiri argues that as early as 1907

a government committee concluded that Indian students negative views towards British rule

62Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 183.63Robert Winder,Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain(Abacus, 2005), p.293.64Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p.181.65

Lahiri,Indians in Britain, p. 201.66Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 181.67ibid., p. 191.


21/65

18

and, discontent are usually strengthened by their residence in England.68There were

exceptions to this. Visram highlights a Cambridge student who considered the British in the

metropole kinder than those in India, commenting that it was only at their firesides that their

kindness and consideration, their unaffectedness and their liberality of mind was met with.

Yet, even he noted, an innate sense of superiority in the Englishman which makes him look

upon himself as belonging to a race the first in all the world.69Nevertheless, life was often

difficult for black overseas students and, During the Second World War many graduate

students were called up; other students had to find employmentmostly unskilled factory

workas their families were unable to send them money.70

As a result of these difficulties, London, particularly, provided alternative homes for

imperial migrants. In this way, Britain appeared to welcome the Empire to the metropole.

Many of these institutions were aimed at colonial students, such as the hostel for Indian

students and English societies and persons interested in India that opened in Kensington in

191071. By 1932, the Indian Students Union and Hostel was situated opposite SMH. 72Other

overseas students clubs included London House (for white colonized people), the India

Hostel (for those from India) and Aggrey House (for students from Africa and the West

Indies).

As the society and culture of the metropole altered during the 1930s and 40s, so to did

British Christian mission. Many leading Christians had personal experience, through their

overseas missionary work, of growing anti-imperial sentiment and activism. At the same

time, there was concern about the difficult lives and unhappiness among overseas students.

Alongside changes within the British Christian movement, the visibility of imperial subjects

68Lahiri,Indians in Britain, p. 123.69Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 182.70



22/65

19

in the metropole would affect Christian thinking and impact on missionary culuture. In this

period, leading Christians would shift their focus to the metropole and what could be

achieved there in relation to the wider empire. The Student Christian Movement contributed

greatly to changes taking place in the mission in these years. In turn, these changes would

impact on Mary Trevelyan and her work at Student Movement House.


23/65

20

Chapter Two

British Christian Mission and the shifting role of the Student Christian Movement

The chapter opens by looking at the origins of the Student Christian Movement (SCM) and

examines the changing nature of Christian mission organisations within Britain and the

Empire in the lead up to 1932. The argument moves on to consider the place of the SCM

within this mission framework in the metropole, and concludes with an examination of

whether the civilizing mission existed, albeit at a weaker level, in the interwar mission

movement.

The origins of the Student Christian Movement within the global missionary framework

The Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (SCM) was formed by

a merger of the British Inter-University Christian Union [from 1885 it was the British College

Christian Union73] and the Student Volunteer Missionary Union (SVMU). SVMU had been

formed in 1892 with the aim of encouraging students into overseas missionary work.74The

Union existed to establish Christian Unions in higher education. The merger of the two

represented the formal integration in one unit of a number of different strands of student-run

evangelical religion in British Universities75. In 1904 the name was changed to the SCM.

The British SCM was one of many national SCMs across the globe and was affiliated to the

World Student Christian Federation (WSCF), which had been founded in 1895 by the

American evangelist and chairman of the WSCF from 1888 to 1920, John Raleigh [R.] Mott

(1865-1955).76

73Tissington Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (London: SCM

Press, 1933), p. 65.74G. D. Henderson, Fifty Years of the Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 50, no. 11,

1939, pp. 520-523.75

Steve Bruce, The Student Christian Movement: A Nineteenth Century Movement and its Vicissitudes, TheInternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, 1982, pp. 67-82.

76C. H. Hopkins,John R. Mott, 1865-1955: A Biography(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979).


24/65

21

The SCMs non-denominational membership comprised unions, or local SCMs, at

universities and other institutions of higher education, such as schools of art and technical

colleges. From 1912, the Movement was run by a committee of undergraduates and graduate

secretaries, overseen by a general secretary. Some secretaries worked at universities, whilst

other travelling secretaries visited students, but all came together at the annual Summer

Conference to meet and worship. From 1911, the conference took place in Swanwick,

Derbyshire and was organised by the SCMs staff from its headquarters, firstly in Chancery

Lane and then at Annandale, Golders Green in north London77.

Between 1898 and 1929, the general secretary was Tissington Tatlow (1876-1957), an

Irish missionary who was ordained in 1902. So influential was Tatlow in the SCM and British

Christian Mission, that Hugh Martin argued, it was owing to him more than to any other man

that the movement came to exercise its great influence over the life of the church.78Martin

himself served as SCM assistant secretary from 1914.79Other key figures in the interwar

SCM included its Missionary Secretary 1911-1921, William [Bill] Paton (1886-1943), and

William Temple (1881-1944), who progressed from SCM spokesmen to be ordained

Archbishop of both York and Canterbury. Patons son, David (1913-1992), was secretary of

the SCM between 1936 and 1939. Other members from this period would go on to be Bishop

of Chichester (George Bell, 1883-1958), Bishop of Lichfield (Edward Woods, 1877-1953),

and president of the Young Womens Christian Association (Ruth Rouse, 1872-1956). All

were strong proponents of ecumenicalism, also known from the mid-twentieth century as

ecumenism. This was a belief in the global unity of all Christians, regardless of

denomination. The international aspect of ecumenicalism, and its blindness to segregation,

77Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement, p. 465.78Hugh Martin, Tatlow, Tissington (1876-1957), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 36422.79Cecil Northcott, Martin, Hugh (1890-1964), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2004), p. 34905.


25/65

22

fitted with developing philosophies in the Mission movement, as well as those of politics and

society beyond.

Besides Rouse, women were welcome leaders of the SCM and increasingly

significant to the missionary movement as a whole. Zoe Fairfield (1878-1936), the SCMs

Joint Secretary between 1910 and 1926, was instrumental in the establishment of Student

Movement House (SMH). Martin argued, In the Student Movement one finds men and

women working together in terms of equality, and in a spirit of comradeship.80Robin Boyd

(a former missionary who served on the staff of the British SCM between 1951 and 1955)

noted the SCMs support for womens ministry81; Gray agreed, writing, The Movement

holds personality more important than sex.82

At first, Tatlow took a tentative approach to ecumenicalism in the SCM, encouraging

Christian students to prioritize, loyaltyto their own denomination.83This changed after the

World Missionary Conference of Edinburgh 1910. Edinburgh was one of a series of annual

global missionary conferences that began in India in 1872. In 1910, the presiding officer was

John R. Mott and, together with the Indian-born Scottish conference secretary, Joseph

Houldsworth [Joe] Oldham (1874-1969), he ensured that the occasion was used to plan for a

more united approach from the world missionary movement. K. S. Latourette, a Yale

historian who was an active student missionary in 1910, argued that Edinburgh, was the

birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement.84Mott regarded ecumenicalism as an

international project and later wrote of Edinburgh that, The evangelisation of the non-

80Robin Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement,International Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 1, 2007,

pp. 3-8.81ibid., p. 5.82A. Herbert Gray, The Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 43, no. 12, 1932, pp. 558-

561.83Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), pp.

320-1.84

Kenneth Scott Latourette, Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the InternationalMissionary Council, inA History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, ed. Ruth Rouse and Stephen

Charles Neill (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1954), p. 362.


26/65

23

Christian world is not alone a European and an American enterprise; it is to an even greater

degree and Asiatic and an African enterprise.85

Despite Motts intention, there was little evidence of Asians or Africans in Edinburgh.

Brian Stanley has assessed the 1910 Conference, looking at how views forged in the

twentieth century metropole affected the work of missionaries in the wider empire. Stanley

argues that the conference had an imperial slant, with only eighteen Asian delegates and one

African among the official 1,215 delegates. The others came from Europe and North

America, and were almost exclusively Protestant. Stanley also challenges the view of

Latourette that the modern missionary movement reached an apex in 1910 with this

conference, criticizing the lack of focus on Africa and absence of Roman Catholic or Eastern

Orthodox missions.

Instead, the conference is seen as highlighting a continued belief among Western

missions that they were separate from the East. Stanley highlights an assumption among the

conference organisers that global Christianity was based in and emanated from Christian

world of the western hemisphere being spread to the non-Christian world of the east:

[the delegates] had to accept that a crudely geographical division

between Christendom and heathendom was the only basis on which

the fragile ecumenical consensus at Edinburgh could be maintained.86

This was perhaps an unconscious and unintended assumption by the conference organizers.

Nevertheless, such an attitude could be seen as a reflection of Protestant missionary activity

in 1910 when 71 per cent of Protestant missionaries were British or North American87.

Despite this, while there may be dispute over the conferences reach, it is generally agreed

85John R. Mott, The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions (Toronto: The Missionary Society of the Methodist

Church, 1910), p. 191.86

Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, p. 303.87Brian Stanley, Edinburgh 1910 and the Genesis of theIRM,International Review of Mission, vol. 100, no. 2,

2011, p. 150.


27/65

24

that Edinburgh 1910 marked the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement88.

Ecumenicalism would dominate the missionary movement throughout the 1930s.

At this time, the global Christian mission community, controlled as it was by the west,

sought to alter the focus of its missionary work from foreign missions(such as those across

the British Empire) towards the metropole, as part of a new focus on the evangelization of

the world89. This inclusivity was evidence of the inclination to ecumenicalism. Mott and

Oldhams positions in the SCM and WSCF, held during their leadership of the 1910

conference, are given as reasons why the organisation, with its frenetically evangelical

ecumenism90, is seen as strongly influencing events there. The SCMs ecumenical

philosophy was brought to fore thanks to the enthusiasm of its members at the conference.

The SCM and its move away from imperially-oriented overseas mission to promoting

Christianity to overseas students in the metropole.

Alongside its enthusiasm for ecumenicalism, the SCM of the interwar years was increasingly

involved in social justice. After the Great War, there was a strong focus on relief work for

those impoverished or made homeless by the conflict. The largest missionary field of the

1930s was sub-Saharan Africa with 2,894 missionaries, but much of the focus of missionary

writing and conference discussion was on India and China.91Missionaries working outside

the metropole could not ignore the growing strength of independence movements,

particularly that of India. At its 1921 Glasgow Quadrennial, the international agenda was

discussed92, and the SCM demonstrated its commitment to the Christian values of humanity

and peace by, Boyd claimed, repudiating the 1919 massacre of unarmed Indian civilians in

88Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, pp. 3-8.89ibid., p. 3.90Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, p. 24.91

Jeffrey Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700(New York: Routledge, 2008), p. 234.92Hugh Martin, The Student Christian Movement: A survey of its history and growth (London, Student

Christian Movement, 1924), p. 10.


28/65

25

Amritsar and sympathizing with the Indian movements aspirations for Indian self-

government.Boyd argued that this was the first political message sent by the SCM to

another movement.93

This incipient politicisation of the SCM was further evident in its focus on social reform

in the metropole. William Temple was one of the movements strongest proponents of

Christian involvement in social affairs: as early as 1910, this self-proclaimed socialist and

president of the Workers Educational Association, was demonstrating a commitment to

Christian action in the metropole. Temple would go on to popularize the term welfare state.

From 1929, the significance of his beliefs would make a major contribution to British

Christian and global missionary thinking when he was appointed Archbishop of York, the

second most senior Anglican cleric in the world. Despite his eminence, Temple remained

intimately associated with the SCM for thirty-seven years.94He continued to be noted for

embracing its social concern and encouraging international ecumenism through his writing

and speeches.95

At the 1937 Oxford Conference, Temple gave a sermon in support of ecumenism, arguing

that it was not enough for people to be Christians in name, they had to live as Christians96

and, take up the task to which they are summoned by the need of the world.97Temples pre-

eminence and regular presence at conferences led to an almost constant reminder of this call

to Christians throughout 1929-44. Jeffrey Cox argues that despite a reduction in church

attendance, in part as a result of the decline, ofNonconformity as a category of social

definition98, there was evidence of support for Temples values across the missionary

93Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, p. 4.94Tissington Tatlow, William Temple,Religion in Education, vol. 12, no. 2, 1945.95Adrian Hastings, Temple, William (18811944), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford

University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2012 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/36454, accessed 30

Nov 2013].96Leonard Hodgson (ed.),The Second World Conference on Faith and Order, Edinburgh 1937 (London, SCM,

1938), pp.15-23.97ibid., p. 395.98Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 234.


29/65

26

movement of the interwar years, citing its hopes for a multiracial, global Christian

commonwealth.99Temples sudden death on 26 October 1944 would result in the movement

turning away from the values of social justice that he had encouraged, but during the interwar

and early Second World War period, Temples views were highly influential among Christian

missions.

One of those saddenedby Temples sudden death was the poet T. S. Eliot, an American

who became a British citizen and Anglican in 1927.100Eliot was an active and influential

Anglican, who spoke at a number of SCM conferences and would become a patron of SMH.

Between 1938 and 1947, Eliot attended The Moot, a private discussion group formed of

prominent Christian intellectuals. Convened by Joe Oldham, The Moot grew out of the 1937

Oxford Conference, but its aim was to continue, in an informal, confidential but serious way,

exploration between church and society and the realisation of Christian ethics in the public

sphere.101The Moot examined the predominant values of Christian mission during the

period, especially those of ecumenicalism, social justice and internationalism.

British Christian missions post-1910 commitment to internationalism, was as significant

to its interwar leadership as ecumenism and social justice. Boyd connected all three, seeing

the sense of internationalism within the SCM as a reflection of a wider attitude of social and

racial justice as an integral part of the churchs mission. As early as 1919, the SCMs

Call to Battle declared, We are convinced that this [international] unity is the only hope of

peace and of the true development of nations102. The SCMs commitment to internationalism

was further demonstrated through its support for the League of Nations and the work of SMH

in London. There was also a desire to ease international tensions. Bill Paton, writing in 1919

99Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 233.100Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS Am 1691.2, T. S. Eliot's Letters to Mary Trevelyan (1940-1956),

30 October 1944.101

Keith Clements ed., The Moot Papers: Faith, Freedom and Society 1938-1944(Edinburgh: T & T ClarkInternational, 2009), p. 1.

102Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement, p. 685.


30/65

27

after three years serving as a missionary in India, was worried about the anti-British opinions

being formed by Indian students in the metropole, some of whom, return to India hating the

country of their exile. Paton saw the presence of Indian students in Britain as a challenge to

Christians and important from the point of view of relations between Britain and India; and

is doubly important from the point of view Christianity.103In this way, Paton prioritized the

needs of Christianity over the needs of Britain and imperialism.

Due to his personal experiences in India, including of civil disobedience, Paton was

aware of the growing political tension104. In 1911 Paton had married Grace MacDonald,

whose practical commitment to social reform, such as working to improve nurses conditions

in Calcutta, had a great influence on Patons mission work and teachings.105Paton ensured

that his experience in India impacted on SCM work in the metropole and that he saw this

work through the lens of Christian teaching rather than imperialist propaganda.

Besides the inception of SMH, SCM met this challenge of Indian students in our

midst by creating a position on the staff of the British SCM for a representative from the

Indian SCM, which had been established in 1912.106Martin agreed with Paton that

disillusionment and embitterment might foster amongst foreign students and others abroad

in the empire against everything Western and Christian.107In 1929, he wrote,

There are about 6,000 foreign students in our colleges, from about

sixty different countries including some 1,538 Indians, of whom

nearly half are in London, and 93 Chinese. About 1,000 students from

the colonies are included in the total. . . . it is of the greatest

103William Paton, Social Ideas in India (London: SCM, 1919), pp. 97-8.104Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, Paton, William (1886-1943), Secretary International

Missionary Council: correspondence, 1910-43.105E. M. Jackson, Paton, William, in Gerald H. Anderson (ed.), Biographical Dictionary of Christian Missions

(New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 1988), p. 519.106

Dana L Robert, The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Missionary Movementbetween the World Wars,International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol. 26, no 2, 2002, pp. 50-66.

107Martin, The Student Christian Movementp. 10.


31/65

28

importance that these men and women, in particular the Oriental

students, should be welcomed and helped to see something of the best

of our British life. Their presence in this country provides a unique

opportunity of inestimable importance for the promotion of

international understanding and goodwill.108

This is similar to Patons view, and demonstrates Martins and thus the SCMs

focus on internationalism or international understanding and goodwill. This

need would become a greater priority to the SCM throughout the 1930s as

relations in the international community soured and the League of Nations failed

repeatedly to maintain peace.

Did interwar Christians challenge traditional imperial values such as the 'civilizing mission'?

Since the publication of Orientalism, the cultural values of the British Empire have

been seen through traditional frameworks of the colonized and colonizer, with

missionaries being judged as the latter. In this way, missionaries are seen to reflect all aspects

of imperial culture, including oppression, capitalism and racial prejudice. More recently,

distinctions have been made within these terms, for example by Elizabeth Kolsky, who

identifies the official colonizers of the army and colonial service, as different from those such

as missionaries, who are non-official109. Cox has argued against traditional views,

criticizing those who, treat missionaries . . . as nothing more than cultural imperialists. Cox

agrees with Saids binary view of colonizers and colonized but argues that there is a contact

zone, a region of hybridity and a transculturization, that takes place between them, and that

this is where missionary activity is found.110 This theory of transculturization seems useful

108Martin, The Student Christian Movement, p. 10109

Elizabeth Kolsky, Colonial Justice in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) pp. 5,44.

110Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p.6.


32/65

29

to apply to the missionary movement of the interwar years, and is more applicable to this

dissertation than more traditional assessments of missionaries in the mid-nineteenth century.

Nevertheless, whether they are seen as official or unofficial, missionaries have been

seen as cultural colonizers driven by a desire to civilize. Clare Midgley, for example, has

highlighted female missionaries in the nineteenth century who regarded Indian women as

being in need of liberation by British ladies111. Catherine Hall observed that to English

non-conformist missionaries of the mid-nineteenth century, Christianity and civilisation

were intimately linked.112However, it is questionable that in the interwar period, the SCM as

an organization, or a large number of individuals belonging to it, saw non-Christians as

uncivilised. Despite this, that decisions regarding non-Christians were made at conferences

in the metropole by a majority of Westerners rather than in the missionary field indicates that

a separation between colonizer and colonized continued to an extent.

There is little evidence that SCMs work in Britain over the first half of the twentieth

century was used to civilise those from overseas, but more to extend the hand of friendship.

As early as the 1938, Hall notes, CLR James, who had attended a lecture at SMH in 1932

during Trevelyans time as Warden113, challenged the assumption that causality always ran

from the centre to the colony, and that metropolitan politics were unrelated to those of the

periphery.114By the interwar years, the missionary movement differed in thought and action

from its Victorian counterpart. Mission organizers were keen to focus on the metropole and

were becoming serious about promoting indigenous leadership on the churches.115By the

1930s, there was an emergence of indigenous non-western Christianity.116Beyond the

111Clare Midgley, Gender and Imperialism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), pp. 64-65.112Catherine Hall, Civilising Subjects: Metropole and Colony in the English Imagination, 1830-1867

(Cambridge: Polity, 2002), p. 21.113C. L. R. James, (Laughlin, Nicholas, ed.),Letters (Oxford: Prospect Press, 2003).114

Hall, Civilising Subjects, p. 8.115Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 237.116ibid., p. 239.


33/65

30

confines of the SCM leadership, not all missionaries were committed to the new

internationalist thinking. Traditionally imperial racist views continued as is evident in Grace

Patons letter of 1 March 1922 from Calcutta to her husband:

I must tell you the tale of an English (or rather Scotch) missionary,

who said to Mary Oldham117he couldnt think what all the fuss about

the Moplak train tragedy was (64 were suffocated, you will

remember) it didnt matter with those sort of people, they werent like

us. This man is young too . . I was afraid this sounded too depressed .

. . the race hatred.118

Grace and Bill Paton were both admirers of Gandhi and were not alone in this among the

missionary movement. As early as 1921, the SCM was proclaiming its support for Indian

independence. During the 1930s, many prominent Christians were vocal in their support for

Indian independence. Pragmatically, and demonstrating his priority, Paton viewed the

situation from the view of Christian mission and was pleased by his position as an active

missionary in Calcutta, writing to Graces mother that, one could not wish for a better job

than to have a hand in the co-ordination of the Christian forces at this moment in Indias

history.119

Also present in India was the missionary Charles Freer Andrews (1871-1940), a

friend of Gandhi. Whilst performing missionary work, Andrews became an active

campaigner for Indian independence and social reform, and took his message to the British

and American SCM conferences of 1918.120121Andrews Christian beliefs manifested

themselves through pacifism. One source of painful disagreement122with his friend was

117Mary Oldham, nee Fraser, wife of J. H. Oldham.118Letter from Grace Paton, Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, 1 March 1922, p. 4.119Letter from William Paton, Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, 6 April 1922, p. 1.120

Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 6.121Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement,p. 5.122C. F. Andrews,Mahatma Gandhis Ideas (New York: Macmillan, 1930), p. 133.


34/65

31

over Gandhis support for Indian volunteering for the Great War. Andrews remained a

committed pacifist.

The pragmatic visionaries of the SCM were looking to a Christianity that could

function outside imperialism. If India were to become independent and leave the Empire, a

strong internationalist Christianity was required. Rev. Golak Nath, an Indian Christian

running the American Presbyterian Mission at Jullundur, saw imperialism as the biggest

impediment to global cohesion; he believed imperialism prevented, sympathy between

missionaries and Indian Christians.123Cox describes Rev. Nath as being, committed to the

missionary fantasy, as Cox puts it, of a multiracial Christian commonwealth.124Yet for

Paton, Oldham, Temple and the SCM in the 1920s and 30s, such acommonwealth was more

hope than fantasy.

Cox argues that British missionary enterprise has been caught between the empire of

Christ and the empire of Britain.125The evidence examined thus far suggests that the SCM

wished to create an empire of Christ through the medium of internationalism. However, a

move towards internationalism was not necessarily a rejection of Britishness. In some

respects, Britishness (or Englishness) was represented by the Anglican Church, the official

Church of England, but this Church was perhaps less involved in practical missionary activity

than nonconformist denominations, such as Methodists and Baptists. For this reason, it is not

accepted that the British establishment dominated Protestant missionary activity in the early

twentieth century. John Mott, for example, was an American Methodist, while Oldham

worked as secretary of the Mission Study council of the United Free Church in Scotland126.

123William Roger Louis, Still More Adventures with Britannia: Personalities, Politics and Culture in Britain

(London: I B Tauris, 2003), p. 305.124

Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 19.125ibid., p. 21.126Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, p. 23.


35/65

32

Paton was a Presbyterian minister, but his son was Anglican and his mission activity was

strongly influenced by his wife who converted to Roman Catholicism in 1936127.

In 1929, Gray argued that the aim of the SCM was, To hold up Christ Himself before

the students of the world.128Christianity and leading an active Christian life, therefore, were

more important to the avowed work of the SCM than national values. On the other hand, in

promoting friendship with Indian students the SCM could be seen to promote a pro-British

outlook in India, on in which the British religion of Christianity could foster in the days after

the impending independence. As discussed above, this is what Paton wanted and as Gray

described, the Student Movement [through SMH] has made a very real contribution towards

the solution of this problem. No finer bit of constructive peace work can be recorded.129

The SCMs commitment to internationalism was central to Mary Trevelyans work at

Student Movement House. She would be inspired by the idealism of the interwar years and

would rise up to meet the challenge faced by students and Christians during the Second

World War.

127

Jackson, Paton, William, p. 519.128Martin, The Student Christian Movement, p. 12.129Gray, The Student Christian Movement, pp. 560.


36/65

33

Chapter Three

Civilizing Mission? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House, 1932-1946

This chapter begins by discussing Mary Trevelyans background and life history and

then moves onto an examination of her place of work, Student Movement House (SMH). The

chapter concludes with an assessment of whether her work and that of the House were

examples of cultural imperialism or cultural internationalism.

Mary Trevelyan (1897-1983)

Mary Trevelyans family background was strongly Anglican, with many of her relatives

committed to public service. Both these qualities would influence Trevelyans later career.

Her father, Reverend George Philip Trevelyan (1858-1937), both grandfathers, and brother-

in-law were ordained. Her older brother, Humphrey (later Baron Trevelyan; 1905-1985),

worked as a diplomat in the Indian Civil Service. Marys great great-grandfather was a

baronet, and through her great grandfather, the Ven. George Trevelyan (1764-1827), Mary

was second cousin to George Macaulay Trevelyan (1876-1962), Master of Trinity College,

Cambridge. G. M. Trevelyan was a notable historian and would become Vice President of

SMH.

Trevelyans background placed her firmly in the English upper-middle class: her

nephew, Humphrey Carpenter, described the family as belonging to a sublimely self-

confident caste130. In character, Trevelyan was determined, idealistic and energetic:

described by her friend, T. S. Eliot, as industrious, honest, and moderately temperate'131. The

130Humphrey Carpenter, Poor Tom: Mary Trevelyans View of T. S. Eliot,English, vol. 30, no. 160, 1989, pp.

37-52.131Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS Am 1691.2, T. S. Eliot's Letters to Mary Trevelyan (1940-1956),28 September 1946.


37/65

34

eldest of six, she was well-educated, and was first employed as a music teacher at a boys

public school.

In 1932, at the age of 35 and unmarried, Mary Trevelyan was appointed by the SCM

as Warden of Student Movement House at 32 Russell Square in Londons Bloomsbury. Her

staunchly Christian background and experience of working with young people fitted her to

the task of caring for overseas students. Trevelyan ran the club, assisted by two male and two

female graduates, who were, usually British, but we had Dutch, Canadian, American, New

Zealand, and even a Chinese on the staff . . . 132In 1938, these graduates included James

Christopher MacDonald Paton (1915-1989), son of Bill Paton. Trevelyans use of the word

even in reference to the Chinese staff member in a list of graduates from predominately

white nations may imply that it was unusual for staff to be a non-white. However, it is

perhaps not so surprising given that the Chinese Christian Union used the House for their

meetings133. The Club Committee was more nationally mixed, with only five English

members out of twelve in 1938134.

In 1937, Trevelyan took a sabbatical from SMH to travel to Ceylon, India, Burma,

Singapore, Penang, China, Japan, America and Canada. She wanted to learn about the worlds

into which international students were returning.135Trevelyan felt her travels informed her

work, later writing, I have found that one can help people from abroad much better if one

has some knowledge of their background.136. In a letter dated 10 November 1936137,

Archbishop Temple, Halifax, William Paton, the educationalist A. D. Lindsay and geologist

Thomas H. Holland asked Trevelyan to report on her investigations in India. Sumita

132Mary Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth: An account of the authors experiences as Warden of the

Student Movement House (London: Faber & Faber, 1942), p. 19.133Tissington Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement (London: SCM Press, 1933), p. 167.134Special Collections, University of Birmingham, Records of the Student Christian Movement: Student

Movement House: S1. Student Movement House Annual Report 2, 1938-9.135

Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth, p. 70.136Mary Trevelyan, African Student at Home,African Affairs, vol. 54, no. 214, 1955, pp. 37-41.137Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth,p.161.


38/65

35

Mukherjee observes that Trevelyan, was struck by the high incidence of unemployment

among the England-returned in India and, the unhappiness of these men who had

psychological difficulties adjusting upon their return home.138Some of this unhappiness was

as a result of the envy and scorn of Indians who had remained in India and who, Trevelyan

felt, fear competition.139Trevelyan noted that former students who had trained for the Indian

Civil Service were busy and well contented with their profession.140She concluded the less

serious students were unemployed short-term view of employment141, but others, such as

lawyers, faced difficulties finding work in India.142Trevelyan was not always sympathetic to

Indian students, particularly those who did not focus on study.

Nevertheless, inspired by her visit to the residential International House of New York

in the USA, she returned to London fully committed to promoting internationalism. The three

American International Houses of New York, Berkeley and Chicago offered to students an

introduction to American ways of thinking and living: for American students an opportunity

for acquaintance with cultures other than their own.143The chief difference between these

and SMH was that they were residential, which Trevelyan felt provided students with the

opportunity to get to know each other better . . .144

Within a few years, a major part of her role as Warden was spearheading a fund-

raising campaign to pay for a new building for the club. SMHs Russell Square premises was

set to be destroyed in plans for the London University extension of 1939. An appeal was

launched in 1938, and Trevelyan used all her family and work contacts to assist. Thanks to

these, along with Trevelyans own energy and vision, the appeal was successful and in April

138Sumita Mukherjee,Nationalism, Education and Migrant Identities: The England-returned(Abingdon:

Routledge, 2010), p. 115.139Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth, p. 165.140ibid., p.83.141ibid., p. 165.142



39/65

36

1939, SMH moved into new premises, a short walk from Russell Square, at 103 Gower

Street.145

During the Second World War, despite the Bloomsbury area being hit heavily by air

raids, Trevelyan remained in post until September 1944 when she was granted leave of

absence by SCM to go to Brussels to run a YMCA leave hostel for allied soldiers. Using her

experience of managing SMH, Trevelyan co-operated with her fellow relief workers from

different backgrounds, including Catholics, Socialists and Communists, which she considered

one of the few good results of Nazi domination.146This is evidence of Trevelyans

optimistic, if slightly narrow, outlook: Trevelyan tended to focus on the positive aspects of

socio-cultural interaction and on her own tasks.

After returning in May 1945, Trevelyan found employment by the SCM increasingly

difficult. T. S. Eliot sympathized, writing on 3 April 1945, But I imagine they will accept

your terms: they wont get anybody else who could do the job . . .147Lyndall Gordon

highlighted the poor relationship that existed between Trevelyan and her employer, as when

she told a younger friend, Ann Stokes, that she loathed the Student Christian Movement who

regarded her running of the Student Movement House as lacking in gravitas & fervent efforts

to convert the many students from umpteen countries & religions.148The tension Gordon

describes between the SCM and Trevelyan over her informal, friendly approach suggests that

the Warden took a pragmatic approach to fostering international friendship which contrasted

with that of the SCM. The comment on fervent efforts to convert the many students

145101 Gower Street was acquired in 1943 [SCM: SMH: S1. Sixth Annual Report, 1943-44].146Mary Trevelyan,Ill Walk Beside You. Letters from Belgium: September 1944-May 1945(London:

Longmans & Co., 1946), p. 8.147

Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS AM 1691.2, T. S. Eliot's Letters to Mary Trevelyan (1940-1956),3 April 1945.

148Lyndall Gordon, The Imperfect Life of T. S. Eliot (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001), p. 434.


40/65

37

contradicts Trevelyans statement in her autobiography that there should be no proselytising

in the club.149

In 1946, Trevelyan left the House, after beginning an appeal for another new building.

She continued to dream of the great International Housewhich we would set up in London

in the model of the International Houses of the United States.150This residential House would

offer greater opportunity for students of different backgrounds to get to know each other

better151. Trevelyans dream would become reality in May 1965 when International Students

House was opened in Park Crescent. The current International Students House stands as her

legacy.

Student Movement House: For Students of All Nations?

SMH was established on 2 November 1917 by SCM as a living memorial to those young

British students who fought so gallantly twenty years ago in the war to end war.152

Through international friendship, the club was intended, to heal wounds caused by conflict,

overcome prejudice and inspire the spirit of tolerance and understanding which is the only

hope of peace and the true development of nations.153Trevelyan described SMH as intending

to create a peaceful internationalist world: where people of different countries could make

real friends with each other . . . could come together in spite of, even because of their

differences.154

Rev. Herbert Gray described the establishment of SMH as, the most important single

piece of work which the British [Christian] Movement has done, going on to write that the

club was something like a real home for Foreign Students. Gray, like others in the SCM at

149Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth,p. 23.150ibid., p. 115.151ibid., p. 115.152

ibid.,p. 159.153SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1938.154Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth,p. 16.


41/65

38

the time, were concerned about the loneliness and the sense of neglect many international

students experienced in interwar London. This concern was also related to the growing

independence movement, particularly regarding the two thousand Indian students in Great

Britain155In 1935-6, 900-1000 of the 1556 Indian students in the British Isles were studying

at the University of London156. As early as 1907, a government committee concluded that

Indian students were discontented with British rule and that this discontent [is] usually

strengthened by their residence in England.157

The official title of SMH was a Club for Students of All Nations. The club specified

that students of every race and creed were welcome.158Despite the SCM being a Christian

organisation, it was decreed that there be no religious qualification for membership, and

there should be no proselytising in the club.159Although many members did not have high

allowances, they tended to be from elite backgrounds in their respective countries, such as, a

young prince from the Gold Coast.160

Ability to speak English varied, with some students knowing scarcely a word of

English161on arrival. Although members were free to speak in whatever language they chose

in the club rooms, the lecture programme was given in English. Roughly one third of the

membership throughout its existence was British, some of whom were studying foreign

languages and others, like Bill Patonssons, had been born or lived overseas.

SMH opened from 11am to 10.30pm on weekdays, 11am-11pm on Saturdays and

2pm-11pm on Sundays. It offered students silent study rooms, club rooms for socialising, a

155A. Herbert Gray, The Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 43, no. 12, 1932, pp. 558-

561.156Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth,p.165.157Shompa Lahiri,Indians in Britain. Anglo-Indians Encounters, Race and Identity, 1880-1930(London: Cass,

2000), p. 123.158SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1938.159

Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth,p. 23.160ibid.,pp. 17-18.161SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1946.

7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPE

Documents

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946