A CENTURY before this quotation, Humphrey Prideaux, who was to become Dean of Norwich, castigated the East India Company for bringing down God's curse on it for neglecting to propagate Christianity in India. He pointed out that the English East India Company had fallen from wealth and power while the Dutch company, which furthered Christianity in its territories, was thriving. Prideaux put forward nine proposals to bring the English company back into God's favour. Amongst them, he recommended that the Company should provide chaplains, set up schools and establish a seminary to supply Protestant ministers who would ‘oppose the Popish priests who swarm in India’. Consonant with the spirit of the age, with its rash of societies for the improvement of England's morals and manners, Prideaux sought to improve the morals and manners of India. He also advocated the appointment of a bishop in order to ensure a proper Anglican footing for the clergy. Prideaux, however, was sceptical of the Company fulfilling its Christian obligations voluntarily and urged his readers to ensure that a law was passed in Parliament to force the East India Company into action. His fears were well founded.

BEFORE THE VELLORE mutiny occurred, William Bentinck, Governor of Madras, had concluded that the British were ‘strangers in the land’. This was an opinion he still held some twenty years later when he arrived in Bengal as Governor-General. He believed the people of India had not benefited from British rule and in 1829 wrote that Britain could expect no co-operation from Indians in times of emergency. Numerous Company servants had expressed similar views over the years. Despite a century of rule, and all the Company's efforts to conciliate Indian religious feelings, the Great Uprising made clear that the British were not only regarded as aliens in the Indian landscape but that Indians believed it had broken its ‘compact’ with them. In the breast-beating that occurred in Britain after the Uprising was put down, many indeed thought that the Company had given too much support to Christianity. Evangelicals, on the other hand argued that not enough support had been given.

The Company tried to cling on to its power. John Stuart Mill, who wrote the petition to Parliament requesting the continuance of Company rule, pointed out that:

CHARLES GRANT was not about to give up his missionary plans despite the defeat of the ‘pious clause’ in 1793. In 1794 he was unanimously elected to the Direction of the Company through the influence of Henry Dundas and others. He and his fellow Evangelical director, Edward Parry, were a formidable duo determined to use their patronage and influence to further Christianity in India. However, it was not Grant and Parry, but the Baptists who were to have the first success. While they were embroiled in the negotiations over the renewal of the Company's charter, John Thomas, whom Grant had sacked for his failure to run the mission at Gumalti as agreed, succeeded in exciting the interest of William Carey to go to India rather than Tahiti. Carey had been instrumental in the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society in 1792. In June 1793 Thomas and Carey set sail from England as the Society's first missionaries. However, their timing could not have been worse: they sailed just after the defeat of the ‘pious clause’ and the renewal of the Court of Directors' standing order requiring the expulsion of all unlicensed persons arriving in India.

Some of the names are rather confusing. This is a short aide-memoire for those names that might pose difficulties.

William Carey, snr (1761–1834), first Baptist missionary to India

William Carey, jnr (1787–1852), his son, also a missionary in Bengal

Charles Grant, snr (1746–1823), Chairman of the Company for many years, MP

Charles Grant, jnr (1778–1866), Chairman, 1830–1834. Lord Glenelg, 1835, MP

Sir Robert Grant (1779–1838), Charles's second son, Governor of Bombay, 1834–1838

Warren Hastings (1732–1818), Governor-General of Bengal, 1774–1785

Francis Rawden Hastings (1754–1826), 1st Marquess of Hastings, second Earl of Moira, Governor-General, 1813–1822

Zachary Macaulay (1768–1838), abolitionist and Governor of Sierra Leone

Colin Macaulay (1799–1853), his nephew, first Resident at Travancore, 1800–1813

Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859), Zachary's son; commissioner of the Board of Control, 1832–3, then law member on the Supreme Council, 1834–8, president of the GCPI, MP, 1st Baron Macaulay (1857)

Sir Thomas Munro (1761–1827), Governor of Madras, 1819–1827

Colonel John Munro, Resident of Travancore, 1813–1819

James Monro, Collector of Palamcottah in the 1820s

Beilby Porteus (1731–1809), Bishop of London, 1787–1808

Revd Willliam Porteous (1735–1812), Church of Scotland Minister, Scottish Divine, prolific correspondent with Henry Dundas

Daniel Wilson (1777–1858), Bishop of Calcutta, 1834–1858

Horace Hayman Wilson (1786–1860), assistant East India surgeon, then assay master at Calcutta Mint; secretary of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1811–1833, member of the General Committee of Public Instruction, 1823–1832, professor of Sanskrit at Oxford, librarian at East India House, 1836–1860.

The Parliamentary Battle

BY JANUARY 1813 Evangelicals were ‘all on the alert to besiege Government and perhaps Parliament for a clause in favour of missions or for liberty to send missionaries, and security when arrived’. The Company had not been idle either and was determined to hold on to its right to determine who should enter its territories. The Baptist leaders waited on Lord Liverpool early in February. In distinct contrast to his reception of the CMS deputation in July 1812, Liverpool's words gave little comfort. Church Evangelicals had been conciliatory and had stressed their loyalty to the Established Church. Dissenters demanded more and threatened Liverpool with a public petitioning campaign. It also seems likely that by this time the East India Company had lobbied him to ensure that he did not weaken on the matter of licences. Liverpool was well informed about events in India. He was also related to Prendergast and Ricketts, two of the missionaries' staunchest opponents. Liverpool pointed out some of the Baptist indiscretions. He made it clear that he believed, along with most Company officials, that ‘British continuance in India depended upon Indian opinion’ and that Britain kept its dominion there ‘just so long as the natives think themselves unable to drive us out’.

TWO HOURS after midnight on 10 July 1806, sepoys crept up and murdered the European sentries at Vellore fort, where Tipu Sultan's family were state prisoners. The European quarters were surrounded and officers and soldiers in the barracks, including those in the hospital, were shot. The striped tiger of Mysore was hoisted. This revolt was put down very swiftly but not before the toll of dead and wounded on the British side was nearly 200. Shortly afterwards further disturbances occurred in Madras Presidency at Wallahjabad, Nundidrug, Bellary, Hyderabad, Palamcottah, Quilon and Bangalore. The sepoy mutiny sent shock waves through India and even more in Britain when news of it reached there in February the following year. Opponents of missionary activity seized on the mutiny as proof that their arguments that Indian religious prejudices were easily excited were only too true and that the greatest caution was needed in any interference with them. Grant and Parry had a battle on their hands to persuade the opposition that extreme action should not be taken against missionaries.

The causes of the Vellore Mutiny were a matter of fierce contention then and controversy over them continues to this day. Lord William Bentinck, Governor of Madras at the time, placed chief blame on the introduction of new dress regulations for the sepoys.

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY's worst fears came to gruesome fruition in 1857 when many of the sepoys of its Bengal army mutinied and killed not only their officers but also their wives and children. After two and a half centuries, the Company was about to be ejected from India in ignominy. It was clear that whatever the precise motives were behind the actions of those who rebelled, the Indian Uprising of 1857/8 was for many, at least in part, a war of religion. The British similarly regarded their own brutal retaliation as revenge for the slights to Christianity as well as for the murders of their people. Religious language predominated in the rhetoric of both Britons and Indians.

When the merchant venturers of the English East India Company began to set up factories on the Indian subcontinent from 1600, India was not the united country we have today. The subcontinent was politically fragmented, formed of a myriad of princely states, many of which owed allegiance to the Mughal emperor.

BY 1812, it was clear to the Company that it was under siege once again: there were numerous interests determined to end its monopoly of trade in the East. The Company was equally determined to keep interlopers out of its domains and protected its interests with increasing forcefulness, refusing licences and insisting that those who managed to enter India illegally be sent home. We saw in the previous chapter how this had affected missionaries. With the Company's charter due for renewal, both missionaries in India and their friends at home believed the time for legislative action had come.

Initially Wilberforce believed that there should be a partnership between those wanting to end the Company's monopoly and the missionary lobby. In February 1812 he wrote in his diary that those interested in the cause of religion would probably be compelled ‘to join the great body of commercial and political economy men, who will I doubt not contend for destroying the monopoly of the Company, and leaving the road to the East Indies free and open’. However, Grant, as a Director and former Chairman of the Company, had a very narrow view of the relationship between trade and Christianity. He was unequivocally against the ending of the Company's monopoly, fearing that the opening of India to unlicensed adventurers would be disastrous for commercial, political and religious reasons.

BY THE 1770s there was growing concern about the way in which the Company was ruling its Indian territories. As the above effusion from Horace Walpole demonstrates, no holds were barred. Language was racist and intemperate and spared no one, least of all the British. As Company wealth and power increased, mounting concerns were expressed about the corruption of Company officials. Returning Company servants were referred to as ‘nabobs’ (a corruption of ‘nawab’ or ruler). These nabobs arrived home laden with Indian riches, which enabled them to buy country estates and purchase parliamentary seats above the ‘going rate’. This was alleged to make entry into British politics even more expensive than it was already. It was widely held that nabobs and their wealth were harmful to political life both in Britain and India. The numbers of nabob MPs rose steadily to about 45 between 1784 and 1790. While they never acted as a combined ‘interest group’ and their ability to affect Indian legislation was, therefore, limited, these nouveaux riches aroused resentment. Fears began to be expressed about the effect that possession of India might have on the British constitution and liberties.

5 Sep 1784 Henry Dundas (Viscount Melville, 1802)

25 Apr 1801 Viscount Lewisham (Earl of Dartmouth,

6 Jul 1802 Viscount Castlereagh (Secretary for War, 1808)

11 Feb 1806 The Earl of Minto

15 Jul 1806 Thomas Grenville

30 Sep 1806 George Tierney

4 Apr 1807 Robert Saunders Dundas (Viscount Melville, 1811)

11 Jul 1809 Earl of Harrowby

7 Nov 1809 Robert Dundas

4 Apr 1812 Earl of Buckinghamshire (Governor of Madras as Lord H obart, 1794–1798)

4 June 1816 George Canning

12 Jan 1821 Charles Bathurst

5 Feb 1822 Charles Watkins Williams Wynn

4 Feb 1828 Viscount Melville (Robert Dundas)

7 Sep 1828 Lord Ellenborough

22 Nov 1830 Charles Grant (Lord Glenelg from 1835)

15 Dec 1834 Lord Ellenborough

23 Apr 1835 Sir John Cam Hobhouse

30 Aug 1841 Lord Ellenborough

23 Oct 1841 The Lord Fitzgerald and Vesey

17 May 1843 The Earl of Ripon

8 Jul 1846 Sir John Hobhouse

5 Feb 1852 Fox Maule

28 Feb 1852 John Herries

30 Dec 1852 Sir Charles Wood

3 March 1855 Robert Smith

6 Mar 1858 The Earl of Ellenborough

5 June 1858 Lord Stanley (became Secretary of State for India, 2 August)

Grant's Mission Scheme

CHARLES GRANT returned home from India in 1790 after 22 years' service determined to make progress with the 1786 missionary proposal discussed in the previous chapter. Unhappy with the reception the scheme had received from Lord Cornwallis in India, Grant set about trying to obtain more support for it in Britain. He had already sent a copy of the proposal to William Wilberforce, MP and personal friend of William Pitt, the Prime Minister. They soon met and thus began a close friendship, which was to have a considerable impact on the Company once Wilberforce had taken up the cause of Christianising India. In 1785 Wilberforce, like Grant earlier, had undergone an Evangelical conversion experience, which changed the direction of his life. Henceforward, his Christian beliefs would regulate everything he did and give urgency to his attempts to rectify a myriad of social and moral evils. His health was poor, yet he was able to direct his attention effectively for a long period over a wide range of issues. Wilberforce was a mesmerising speaker and was held in affection and esteem by most who had dealings with him. At the time he met Grant, he was immersed in trying to get a motion for the abolition of the slave trade through Parliament. Grant's role as one of Wilberforce's ‘most trusted lieutenants’ in the abolition cause did not, however, deflect him from India.

Section 33 (Resolution 13)

And Whereas it is the Duty of this country, to promote the interests and happiness of the native inhabitants of the British dominions in India, and that such measures ought to be adopted as may tend to the introduction among them of useful knowledge, and of religious and moral improvement. That in the furtherance of the above objects, sufficient facilities shall be afforded by law, to persons desirous of going to, and remaining in India, for the purpose of accomplishing those benevolent designs.

Provided always, that so long as the authority of the local Governments respecting the intercourse of Europeans with the interior of the country, be preserved and that the principles of the British Government, on which the natives of India have hitherto relied for the free exercise of their religion, be inviolably maintained:

And whereas it is expedient to make provision for persons desirous of going to and remaining in India for the above purposes … that where and as often as any application shall be made to the said Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, within one month of receipt thereof …

THE COMPANY's despatch providing for Church of Scotland ministers as stipulated in the new charter made much of the Company's magnanimity, maintaining somewhat disingenuously that this demonstrated ‘our desire to encourage by every prudent means in our power, the extension of the principles of the Christian Religion in India’. Its attitude towards granting licences to missionaries had not, however, changed. The Court continued to have concerns that missionary activity conducted by Evangelicals was not prudent. Both the Chairman of the Company, Robert Thornton, and Nicholas Vansittart, the Evangelical Chancellor of the Exchequer, advised the CMS to defer its applications until the new charter came into effect in 1814. In November 1813, when both the CMS and BMS decided to apply for licences, they were refused. The Court objected to the wording of the BMS application which did not specify that Eustace, Carey's nephew, was to go out as a missionary. Fuller perceptively thought the Directors were ‘galled with the rope wherewith the petitions and Government have tied their hands, and do not like to grant a favour before they are obliged to it, and yet do not know what to object’. The BMS and CMS then appealed to the Board, which forced the Court to grant the licences. However, the Board altered the Court's draft despatch granting these licences in an unexpected way. The draft had used the phrase, ‘as missionaries’.

BY THE END of the 1820s, a new imperial vision was gaining ground in which ‘young men in a hurry’ wanted to sweep away the old ways of doing things in order to bring a new, progressive order to India. The belief of Malcolm and Munro that India needed to be ruled as far as possible in an Indian idiom was anathema to the new breed of official, who argued that Indian society was so corrupt that only the introduction of Western institutions, morals and culture could remedy the situation. Evangelicals in Britain and India continued to press the Company and the Government to legislate for India on the basis of Christian morality. Evangelicalism and reform seemed to be united in the person of the new Governor-General, Lord William Bentinck, who was appointed in 1828. Bentinck arrived in India with little time for ‘old-India hands’ and intended to preside over the redemption of India via a series of reforms. He wanted India opened to more Europeans who, he believed, would build a ‘community of faith and language’, which would bind Britain and India together. Missionaries awaited Bentinck's arrival with the hope that at last they would be able not only to go about their work unhindered by Government but also with its positive support. Anglicans hoped he would improve the standing of the Church in India. The stage seemed set for the dawning of a new era.

1786–1793 Earl Cornwalllis

1793–1798 Sir John Shore (Lord Teignmouth, 1798)

1798–1805 Marquess Wellesley

1805 Earl Cornwallis

1805–1807 Sir George Barlow (Governor of Madras, Feb 1808–May 1813)

1807–1813 Lord Minto

1813–1823 Lord Moira (Marquess of Hastings, 1817)

1823 John Adam

1823–1828 Lord Amherst

1828–1835 Lord William Bentinck (Governor of Madras, 1807–1813)

1835–1836 Sir Charles Metcalfe (March–March)

1836–1842 Lord Auckland

1842–1844 Lord Ellenborough

1844 William Bird (June–July)

1844–1848 Sir Henry Hardinge

1848–1856 Earl of Dalhousie

1856–1858 Viscount Canning

GOVERNORS OF MADRAS 1803–1858

1803–1807 S ir William Bentinck

1807–1813 Sir George Barlow

1814–1820 Sir Hugh Elliot

1820–1827 Sir Thomas Munro

1827–1832 Stephen Rumbold Lushington

1832–1837 Sir Frederick Adam

1837–1842 Sir John Elphinstone (Bombay, 1853–1859)

1842–1848 Marquess of Tweeddale

1848–1854 Sir Henry Pottinger

1854–1859 George Harris

GOVERNORS OF BOMBAY 1795–1858

1795–1811 Jonathan Duncan

1812–1819 Sir Evan Nepean

1819–1827 Mountstuart Elphinstone

1827–1830 John Malcolm

1834–1838 Robert Grant

1839–1841 James Rivett Carnac

1841–1842 George Anderson

1842–1846 George Arthur

1846–1847 Lestock Reid

1847–1848 Sir George Clerk

1848–1853 Lord Falkland

1853–1860 Sir John Elphinstone (created Baron in 1859)