Cultural Imperialism at Home? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House, 1932-1946

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
ii
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
Cultural imperialism at home? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House, 19321946
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.
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
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 SMHs work 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
A. Herbert Gray, The Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 43, no. 12, 1932, pp. 558561.
2
ibid., p. 559.
1
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, Orientalism and 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
Edward W. Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd,
1978); Culture and Imperialism. (London: Vintage, 1994).
4
ibid., p. 213.
5
ibid., p. 215.
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 Orientalism fails 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.6 In 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.7 Nevertheless, 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 Orientalism shows 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.9 However, this
connection between Macaulays civilizing mission and the work of Christians is challenged
Kate Teltscher, India Inscribed: European and British Writing on India 1600-1800 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995), p. 7.
7
ibid., 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.
9
ibid., p. 558.
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.12 This 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.14 Dunch 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.15 This 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.
10
Catherine Hall, Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain (New Have: Yale University Press, 2012),
p. 213.
11
Ryan Dunch, Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Cultural Theory, Christian Missions, and Global Modernity,
History and Theory, vol. 41, no. 3, 2002, p. 301.
12
ibid., p. 301.
13
ibid., p. 303.
14
ibid., p. 307.
15
ibid., p. 309.
5
Dunch separates mission work from imperial mercantilism, criticizing those like R.
Keith Schoppa who have linked missionaries with political or economic forces.16 Dunch
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 . . .17 John
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 autobiography19 and 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
16
R. Keith Schoppa, Revolution and Its Past: Identities and Changes in Modern Chinese History (Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall, 2002), p.45.
17
Dunch, Beyond Cultural Imperialism, p. 308.
18
John Tomlinson, Cultural Imperialism: a critical introduction (London: Pinter, 1991), p 69.
19
Mary Trevelyan, From the Ends of the Earth: An account of the author's experiences as Warden of the
Student Movement House (London: Faber & Faber, 1942).
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.
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 193246.
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.
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 Springhall21 point 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 by it.'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
Jim English, Empire Day in Britain, 1904-1958, The Historical Journal, vol. 49, no. 1, 2006, pp. 247-276.
J. O. Springhall, Lord Meath, Youth, and Empire, Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 5, no. 4, 1970, pp.
97-111.
22
ibid., p 107.
23
John Mackenzie ed., Imperialism and Popular Culture (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), p.
168.
24
Bernard Porter, The Lion's Share: A Short History of British Imperialism, 1850-1995 (3rd edn., London:
Pearson, 1996), p. 10.
20
21
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 antiimperialistic 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.
25
Rozina Visram, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: Indians in Britain 1700-1947 (London: Pluto, 1986), p. 181.
Adrian 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.
27
Alison Light, Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism Between the Wars (New York:
Routledge, 1991), p. 137.
26
10
However, many in Britains cultural elite 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.28 After 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 country by 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
28
David 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, The
Historical Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, 1979, pp. 397-422.
30
Bingham, An era of domesticity?, p. 226.
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 organisation31, the
National Trust.
Trevelyans presidency of YHA was motivated by his internationalist ideals. In 1939,
The Times reported 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
Macaulays History of England and 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 those who cannot protect themselves.33 This 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 Empire34 and later rejoiced in the independence of India.35
Thus, Trevelyan was a greater proponent of international friendship than of Empire.
31
David Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan: a life in history, (London: Harper Collins, 1992), p. 157.
The Times, 8 May 1939, p. 11.
33
Catherine Hall, Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012),
p. 283.
34
Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan, p. 92.
35
ibid., p. 222.
32
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.'36 Nevertheless, 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.37 This 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
John Baxendale, I had seen a lot of Englands: J B Priestley, Englishness and the People, History
Workshop Journal, vol. 2001, no. 51, 2001, pp. 87-111.
37
F. R. Leavis, Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture (Cambridge: The Minority Press, 1930), pp. 3-5.
36
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. 38 Many 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.39 Tabili 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 Times claimed 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
38
Visram, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p, 190.

Laura 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.
41
Stephen Bourne, Black Poppies, History Today, vol. 63, no. 10, 2013, pp. 52-56.
42
The Times, Friday June 13 1919, p. 9.
39
14
Assistance'.43 However, 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 . . .'45 Tabili 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 . .47 Despite 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'48 during the 1930s and 40s.
Also in the metropole were Sikh street hawkers from the Punjab, who arrived in the
1920s and 30s, and factory workers.49 Visram 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 . .50 Thus, it is
43
James Walvin, Black and White: The Negro and English Society 1555-1945 (London: Allen Lane, 1973), p.
210.
44
Tabili, We Ask for British Justice, p. 145.
45
Walvin, Black and White, p. 202.
46
47
ibid., p. 160.
48
49
Visram, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 192.
50
ibid., p. 191.
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.52 As a result, by 1918, Britains black population is believed
to have trebled to 30,000. 53 According to Tabili, many invoked their war service and,
refashioned imperial rhetoric to defend their rights as British subjects.54 In 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,
Bourne, Black Poppies, p. 52.

53
Bourne, Black Poppies, p.52.
54
55
Bourne, Black Poppies, p. 56.
56
Shompa Lahiri, Indians in Britain: Anglo-Indians Encounters, Race and Identity, 1880-1930
(Cass, 2000), p. 179.
51
52
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.'57 In 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.59 However, 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.60 It 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, like Negro 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
57

ibid., p. 212.
59
Angela Woollacott, To Try Her Fortune in London (Oxford: OUP, 2001), p. 148.
60
ibid., p. 96.
61
ibid., p. 96.
58
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 students were 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.65 This supports Visrams argument that Indian students, particularly,
had problems, compounded by religious, cultural and dietary practices. So many students
felt lonely and isolated.66 But, she notes, . . . during the 1930s and 1940s many Indian
medical students stayed in Britain to practise as doctors67 Lahiri argues that as early as 1907
a government committee concluded that Indian students negative views towards British rule
62

Robert Winder, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain (Abacus, 2005), p.293.
64
Visram, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p.181.
65
Lahiri, Indians in Britain, p. 201.
66
67
ibid., p. 191.
63
18
and, discontent are usually strengthened by their residence in England.68 There 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.69 Nevertheless, 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 employment mostly unskilled factory
work as 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. 72 Other
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
68

70
ibid., p. 181.
71
ibid., p. 180.
72
ibid., p. 181.
69
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.
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.74 The
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
73
Tissington Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (London: SCM
Press, 1933), p. 65.
74
G. 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, The
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, 1982, pp. 67-82.
76
C. H. Hopkins, John R. Mott, 1865-1955: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979).
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.78 Martin
himself served as SCM assistant secretary from 1914.79 Other 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,
77
Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement, p. 465.

Hugh Martin, Tatlow, Tissington (1876-1957), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 36422.
79
Cecil Northcott, Martin, Hugh (1890-1964), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004), p. 34905.
78
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.80 Robin 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, loyalty to their own denomination.83 This 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.84 Mott regarded ecumenicalism as an
international project and later wrote of Edinburgh that, The evangelisation of the non-
Robin Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, International Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 1, 2007,
pp. 3-8.
81
ibid., p. 5.
82
83
Brian 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 International
Missionary Council, in A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, ed. Ruth Rouse and Stephen
Charles Neill (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1954), p. 362.
80
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
85
John 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.
87
Brian Stanley, Edinburgh 1910 and the Genesis of the IRM, International Review of Mission, vol. 100, no. 2,
2011, p. 150.
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.91 Missionaries 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
Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, pp. 3-8.

ibid., p. 3.
90
91
Jeffrey Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700 (New York: Routledge, 2008), p. 234.
92
Hugh Martin, The Student Christian Movement: A survey of its history and growth (London, Student
Christian Movement, 1924), p. 10.
88
89
25
Amritsar and sympathizing with the Indian movements aspirations for Indian selfgovernment. 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.94 He 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.97 Temples preeminence 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, of Nonconformity as a category of social
definition98, there was evidence of support for Temples values across the missionary
Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, p. 4.
Tissington Tatlow, William Temple, Religion in Education, vol. 12, no. 2, 1945.
95
Adrian 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].
96
Leonard Hodgson (ed.), The Second World Conference on Faith and Order, Edinburgh 1937 (London, SCM,
1938), pp.15-23.
97
ibid., p. 395.
98
Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 234.
93
94
26
movement of the interwar years, citing its hopes for a multiracial, global Christian
commonwealth.99 Temples 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 saddened by Temples sudden death was the poet T. S. Eliot, an American
who became a British citizen and Anglican in 1927.100 Eliot 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.101 The 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
99

Houghton 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 Clark
International, 2009), p. 1.
102
Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement, p. 685.
100
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.103 In 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.105 Paton 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 1912.106 Martin agreed with Paton that
disillusionment and embitterment might foster amongst foreign students and others abroad
in the empire against everything Western and Christian.107 In 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
103
William Paton, Social Ideas in India (London: SCM, 1919), pp. 97-8.
Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, Paton, William (1886-1943), Secretary International
Missionary Council: correspondence, 1910-43.
105
E. 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 Movement
between the World Wars, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol. 26, no 2, 2002, pp. 50-66.
107
Martin, The Student Christian Movement p. 10.
104
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
108
Martin, The Student Christian Movement, p. 10

Elizabeth Kolsky, Colonial Justice in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) pp. 5,
44.
110
Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p.6.
109
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.112 However, 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.114 By 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.115 By the
1930s, there was an emergence of indigenous non-western Christianity.116 Beyond the
111
Clare Midgley, Gender and Imperialism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), pp. 64-65.
Catherine Hall, Civilising Subjects: Metropole and Colony in the English Imagination, 1830-1867
(Cambridge: Polity, 2002), p. 21.
113
C. L. R. James, (Laughlin, Nicholas, ed.), Letters (Oxford: Prospect Press, 2003).
114
Hall, Civilising Subjects, p. 8.
115
116
ibid., p. 239.
112
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 Oldham117 he 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 1918.120121 Andrews Christian beliefs manifested
themselves through pacifism. One source of painful disagreement122 with his friend was
117
Mary Oldham, nee Fraser, wife of J. H. Oldham.

Letter from Grace Paton, Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, 1 March 1922, p. 4.
119
Letter from William Paton, Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, 6 April 1922, p. 1.
120
121
Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, p. 5.
122
C. F. Andrews, Mahatma Gandhis Ideas (New York: Macmillan, 1930), p. 133.
118
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.123 Cox describes Rev. Nath as being, committed to the
missionary fantasy, as Cox puts it, of a multiracial Christian commonwealth.124 Yet for
Paton, Oldham, Temple and the SCM in the 1920s and 30s, such a commonwealth was more
hope than fantasy.
Cox argues that British missionary enterprise has been caught between the empire of
Christ and the empire of Britain.125 The 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.
123
William Roger Louis, Still More Adventures with Britannia: Personalities, Politics and Culture in Britain
(London: I B Tauris, 2003), p. 305.
124
125
ibid., p. 21.
126
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.128 Christianity 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.
Jackson, Paton, William, p. 519.

Martin, The Student Christian Movement, p. 12.
129
Gray, The Student Christian Movement, pp. 560.
127
128
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 brotherin-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 selfconfident caste130. In character, Trevelyan was determined, idealistic and energetic:
described by her friend, T. S. Eliot, as industrious, honest, and moderately temperate'131. The
Humphrey Carpenter, Poor Tom: Mary Trevelyans View of T. S. Eliot, English, vol. 30, no. 160, 1989, pp.
37-52.
131
28 September 1946.
130
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 . . . 132 In 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.135 Trevelyan 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
Mary 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.
133
Tissington Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement (London: SCM Press, 1933), p. 167.
134
Special 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.
136
Mary Trevelyan, African Student at Home, African Affairs, vol. 54, no. 214, 1955, pp. 37-41.
137
Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth, p.161.
132
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.138 Some 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.139 Trevelyan noted that former students who had trained for the Indian
Civil Service were busy and well contented with their profession.140 She concluded the less
serious students were unemployed short-term view of employment141, but others, such as
lawyers, faced difficulties finding work in India.142 Trevelyan 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.143 The 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 fundraising 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
138
Sumita Mukherjee, Nationalism, Education and Migrant Identities: The England-returned (Abingdon:
Routledge, 2010), p. 115.
139
Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth, p. 165.
140
ibid., p.83.
141
ibid., p. 165.
142
ibid., p. 82.
143
ibid., p. 115.
144
ibid., p. 115.
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.146 This 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 . . .147 Lyndall 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.148 The 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
145
101 Gower Street was acquired in 1943 [SCM: SMH: S1. Sixth Annual Report, 1943-44].
Mary 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.
148
Lyndall Gordon, The Imperfect Life of T. S. Eliot (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001), p. 434.
146
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 House which we would set up in London
in the model of the International Houses of the United States.150 This 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.153 Trevelyan 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
149
Trevelyan, From the Ends of the Earth, p. 23.

ibid., p. 115.
151
ibid., p. 115.
152
ibid., p. 159.
153
SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1938.
154
150
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
Britain155 In 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.158 Despite 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.159 Although 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
English161 on 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 Patons sons, 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
156
Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth, p.165.
157
Shompa Lahiri, Indians in Britain. Anglo-Indians Encounters, Race and Identity, 1880-1930 (London: Cass,
2000), p. 123.
158
159
160
ibid., pp. 17-18.
161
155
39
library, hot and cold meals in the refectory, and a varied lecture and concert programme.
Non-members were welcomed into the Club Rooms as guests. Club activities included
discussion groups, language groups (in English, French and German), rambles, and chapel.
The club also provided recommendations for boarding-houses and families.162
Club members were well aware of international developments. Trevelyan noted that
SMHs first Nazi arrived in 1933 and refused to meet other Germans in the House in case
they are Jew [sic].163 This went against the spirit of internationalism but the student was not
rejected. Actions such as these, as well as the presence of avowedly Nazi students in a club
with members who were Jewish refugees, challenge the SMHs commitment to
internationalism, in failing to establish a code of conduct that protected against anti-semitism.
This is another example of Trevelyans obliviousness to problems not of her immediate
concern. However, by 1938, Trevelyan and SCMs ideal of international friendship appeared
to remain intact despite the current membership hailing from fifty countries, including those
now at war with each other, many refugees from Europe, Nazi students, Arabs and Jews,
White South Africans and Coloured students from the same country164.
Trevelyans commitment that SMH be for students of all nations was tested in
wartime when, There was a continual tension in the House . . .165 The club was designed to
have no political, racial or religious bias in its welcome to students.166 Students of all
religions were welcome to use private space to pray, although it was only Christian students
who had access to their own chapel. The SCM seems to have adhered to its ban on
162

164
165
note by Mary Trevelyan inserted after letter 11 October 1940.
166
163
40
proselytizing as Trevelyan acknowledged few of the students seemed to have any interest
in religion.167
The largest national group of 1938 was British (343 students), followed by India
(153). This did not surprise Trevelyan as, she observed, Indian students . . . so largely
outnumber any other nationality among overseas students in the University of London..168
Trevelyans views on Indian students were informed by her recent visit and also
correspondence with her brother, Humphrey. She wished Indian students to lose some of
their inferiority in the genuine pride of being Indian.169 As well as wishing to bolster
individual morale, Trevelyan was concerned about the divisive potential of the independence
movement, particularly as the Indian students she met were bitterly anti-British, partly
because of the political situation in own country, partly the colour discrimination they found
in England, and partly the police surveillance . . .170 Sympathy with students who felt
bitterness towards Britain is evident throughout Trevelyans writing.
In 1938, from elsewhere in the Empire came thirteen West Indian students, six
Australians, thirteen Ceylonians, nine Palestinians, five Canadians, and one South African.
Beyond the Empire came nine students from the USA and ten from China. Even in 1938
there were fifty-eight German students but by the outbreak of war in September 1939, they
had all left.171 Europe was strongly represented in 1938 by Switzerland (40), Finland (21),
Denmark (16), Sweden (15), Norway (12), France (12), Poland (11), Czechoslovakia (9),
Holland (8), Lithuania (7) Russia (5) and Belgium (3).172
167
Trevelyan, ibid., p. 23.

169
170
171
172
168
41
The House stayed open throughout the war.173 However, with 300 members now
serving in the Forces of their respective countries, other students having left for home,
attendance at the club dropped to no more than twenty-four per day. After the war, for the
first time, in 1946, SMH had a waiting list as there were over 1,600 members. This may have
been linked to the creation of new scholarships by the 1940 Colonial Development and
Welfare Act, which Marc Matera argues, filliped the entry of colonial students into
metropolitan universities during the last two years of the war174: by 1948, for example, there
were more than 1,000 West African students in Britain.175
Officially, SMH was not racist. Its 1938 appeal letter stated, The Colonial Office and
India House count on the Student Movement House as a Club which has never shown any
colour discrimination all students are welcomed . . .176 Trevelyan explained that We feel
that to refuse a coloured student admission to the House would be a betrayal of the ideals for
which we stand . . . She was especially concerned about students in London: most coloured
students in the residential, collegiate atmosphere of Oxford and Cambridge were, she
believed, very happy.177
Trevelyan used the contemporary term coloured rather than black. Writing in
1941, she explained in her autobiography why she found the use of the word black
offensive:
A student from the East once said, Why do you talk of black and
white people? We are not black, we are several shades of brown and
you most certainly, are not white, you are several shades of pink. A
173

Marc Matera, Black Internationalism and African and Caribbean Intellectuals in London, 1919-1950, PHD
dissertation, Rutgers University, 2008, p. 279.
175
Hakim Adi, West Africans in Britain, 1900-1960: Nationalism, Pan-Africanism and Communism. (London:
Lawrence & Wishart, 1998)
176
Special Collections, University of Birmingham, Records of the Student Christian Movement, SECTION S:
Student Movement House, S1. S.M.H. Appeal 1938 [no page numbers].
177
174
42
black man, a nigger, a dago words still in use in England and terms
which convey a world of contempt and scorn, worse even than calling
a man a foreigner.178
SMH aimed to be a place for all but MT recognized that, African or West Indian student has
an even worse time, for he is darker skinned than many Indians . . And why? Just because he
has been born under a tropical sun?179 She noted that, The coloured man or girl had their
own particular fear, of the daily insults and slights from white people, or of walking into
some hotel or restaurant and being turned out again.180 SMH had to work against such
discrimination, Trevelyan argued, as a student who experiences such racism become bitter to
the depths of his soul and would transport a negative view of the great, free democratic
Mother Country to his home.
Trinidadian historian C. L. R. James echoed Trevelyans views on the future influence
of colonial students: Englishmen who respect the Empire, he wrote, would do well not to
forget that it is the West Indians studying in England who will be moulding West Indian
political opinion in the future. James, who had visited SMH while living in Bloomsbury in
1932, described it as:
a club for London students, white and coloured, but with its chief aim
giving coloured students in London an opportunity to meet together
and fraternise with English students, and with one another. The
atmosphere of the place is decidedly intellectual, in intention at
least.181
He went on to write that: were it not for a few institutions like the Student Movement House,
and the League of Coloured Peoples, the average West Indian student would have a dreadful
178
ibid., p. 48.
ibid., p. 50.
180
ibid., p. 22.
181
C. L. R. James, Letters from London (Prospect Press, 2003).
179
43
time.182 In many ways, SMH was successful in its aim of welcoming all, no matter their
colour. Whether it was successful in preventing anti-British feeling among those from across
the Empire is questionable. It is also unclear whether the club succeeded in reducing racism
among students.
As noted in Chapter One, a major factor in the racism that led to the 1919 race riots
was hostility to mixed race marriage and families. Trevelyan was hostile to mixed-race
marriages, writing in 1941 that, this is probably a nightmare, shared by Indian parents and
English hosts . . . Some of these marriages turn out very happily, but I doubt if there is much
happiness for the children of such marriages183. Trevelyans nephew, Humphrey Carpenter,
accused her of being an Englishwoman who took what was ultimately a rather a
condescending attitude to foreigners184, particularly in her later articles and books on
overseas students, but he also wrote that she treated Eliot, whom she loved and respected, as
a small boy185. This may indicate a bossy, slightly unempathetic persona rather than
discrimination against those from overseas. That a West Indian historian and political activist
like C. L. R. James regarded SMH as a non-racist haven186 probably reflects more accurately
on Trevelyans outlook and activity as Warden than that of her nephews assessment some
decades later.
Cultural Imperialism or Cultural Internationalism?

SMHs 1938 appeal letter asserted, England is one of the few remaining countries where
such an experiment [in international living187] could be attempted. This presents an implied
182
C. L. R. James, Appendix to Christian Hgsbjerg Toussaint Louverture: The Story of the Only Successful
Slave (Duke University Press, 2012), p. 206.
183
184
Carpenter, Poor Tom, p. 39.
185
ibid., p. 45.
186
James, Appendix to Christian Hgsbjerg Toussaint Louverture, p. 206.
187
The SCM had described the club as an Experiment in International Living, SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1946.
44
belief in England as civilized in allowing international living, showing the country as
socially and politically liberal. If Trevelyan can be accused of propagating a civilizing
mission, it would be thus: a mission to civilize those harbouring racist and belligerent
views to the culture of international friendship.
SMH had patrons and supporters from the Establishment, including President of SMH
in 1938, Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax (1881-1959), the former Viceroy of India (192631) and current Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1938-40). In September 1938, Halifax
contributed to a Spectator article on The Foreign Student188 in which the journal discusses
the 1938 appeal. While the article acts a promotional tool for SMH, it highlights more aspects
of the clubs commitment to internationalism:
In the Chinese restaurants of London and other cities one may see
today notices, " No Japanese served here." That is a natural and
political reaction in the circumstances. It happens to be the fact that at
Student Movement House Chinese and Japanese students live
together in perfect friendship out of which arise many searching
discussions of their national problems. Similarly, Jewish and Arab
students discuss Palestine. At the outbreak of war Italians and
Abyssinians were friends, and genuine friends, together in Russell
Square.
In a further argument for cultural exchange, the article states, we have much to
learn from as well as to give to these temporary sojourners in the land and links
directly to the current insecurity of the Empire in a time of growing independence
movements and global conflict:
188
The Spectator, 1 September 1938, p. 5.
45
Never did an Empire depend more on reconciling conflicting points of
view . . . For our own gain as a nation, our own gain as an Empire,
and the gain of a world that is larger than either, we have an
opportunity to seize that is being let slip and a duty to discharge that
is largely being ignored.
In practice, Trevelyan sought to seize opportunities by reconciling differing views of students
from diverse backgrounds. Her method was to foster a culture of international friendship, as
illustrated above, and to promote talks, musical performances and social evenings featuring
prominent cultural figures of different nationalities and races.
Trevelyan was proud of how, after SMH was set up, traditional enemies [such as
English and Germans, Hindus and Muslims] came together189, although this was not always
successful: only one Arab member brave enough to join and take part in a Club containing
many Jewish members.190 Nevertheless, some students were inspired enough by SMHs
ideology to proffer the hand of peace. Trevelyan gave the example of a Chinese member of
the club committee, Chen Toh, who disliked an extrovert Japanese student, K., but argued,
this is an international club, and I shall make friends with him.191 They took tea and Chen
Toh concluded we are very good friends now!192. Keen to promote further cultural
exchange, Trevelyan introduced National Evenings at SMH in 1935 so that all students could
learn about each others homes and cultures. The lecture programme included talks on the
world beyond Britain and the concert programme for that year included Chinese, Spanish,
Polish and Zulu dances, and a performance by the anti-imperialist social activist African-
189
Trevelyan, From the Ends of the Earth, p. 16-17; notes in brackets are my addition.
191
192
ibid., p.29.
190
46
American singer, Paul Robeson. 193 Through organizing such events, Trevelyan was
conscious of performing international work at home:
we do believe, most strongly, that the work we are doing here is
vital. Nobody can deny that real international friendship is the
greatest hope for the salvation of this country and of the world of
nations . . We must not, we dare not, neglect this wonderful
opportunity of promoting understanding among the leaders of
tomorrow.
This was no exaggeration. Colonial students in Britain would become the leaders of
tomorrow: amongst them were former SMH members, the first President of Kenya, Jomo
(Johnstone) Kenyatta (c1894-1978) who studied in London from 1934 and (later Sir) Hugh
Springer (1913-1994) Governor-General of Barbados 1984-90194.
Although Trevelyan was interested in international cultures, she did consider SMH in
the context of the British Empire: What happens to overseas students in this country is of
immense importance to the future of our country, our Empire, and the world.195 Such
comments need to be examined in the context of the fact that much of what Trevelyan wrote
was published at times when she was campaigning for SMH appeals. She was thus writing
publicity material designed to appeal to those rich and powerful enough to contribute. Many
of these individuals would have been concerned with the status of Empire. In persuading
others of the importance of SMH, Trevelyan appealed to their sense of England as imperial
power, noting, We pride ourselves in bringing civilization to backward people196 but
pointed out that if imperial students are given a poor reception in the Mother Country, their
193
SCM: SMH: S1 First Annual Report, 1938-1939.

SCM: SMH: S1 Eighth Annual Report, 1945-46: Trevelyan described Springer as one of our most
distinguished members.
195
196
194
47
return home is not without its effect upon our Colonial problems197. Whether these
arguments thus reflected her outlook in respect of her daily work, or whether they were
simply a means to an end, is uncertain.
While the concept of Empire featured in SMH material, the Christian message does
not appear to have been over-emphasized to the membership. Nevertheless faith was
fundamental to SMHs mission; Trevelyan argued that by 1932 the international friendship
present at SMH formed a unity of divinity198. Despite Trevelyans personal beliefs and the
SCMs desire to promote its Christian principles, SMH did not operate as a tool of Christian
cultural imperialism.
Where cultural imperialism is evident in SMHs work is in the influence on future
leaders of countries that were soon to be independent of Empire. Trevelyan and others in the
SCM who had travelled to India were well aware of the movement towards independence.
Even before Trevelyan had taken her post as Warden, the Spectator was arguing that
something needed to be done to prevent a peaceable solution of the Indian problem . . .
[being] undone by the boarding-houses of Bloomsbury.199 Lahiri suggests that the work of
SMH in this regard was ultimately unsuccessful as, close personal relations between Indian
students and English men and women were comparatively rare . . .200 That they existed at all,
though, was in no small part down to the work of SMH.
The culturally imperialist impact could be subtle: even if Britain lost her empire, the
English language and Christianity could continue British cultural dominance overseas. There
is not space in this dissertation to explore the full impact of SMHs former members on their
respective nations after independence, and how their actions affected the relationship between
Britain and former colonies. That there was an impact is likely. This impact may have been
197
ibid., p.11.
ibid., p, 17.
199
Lahiri, Indians in Britain, p. 202 quoting The Spectator, 14 February 1931, p. 5.
200
198
48
greater outside India, in nations, such as Barbados, which were not seen in the early 1930s as
having an independence movement problem.
SMHs activities in Bloomsbury were based on the clubs founding principle of existing
for the alleviation of the isolation endured by foreign students and to foster fraternity
between students of the empire.201 Fostering fraternity among imperial subjects suggests
cultural imperialism, but in practice at SMH there were many more students who were not
from the empire. For this reason, the club can be seen as working towards general
internationalism rather than mere imperialism. The evidence suggests that Trevelyan, through
SMH, was focused on cultural internationalism, not imperialism. Even during wartime,
having endured the deaths of friends and SMH members, and the dangers of London,
Trevelyan remained committed to these international ideals. In 1942, she wrote that she
hoped and believed that the SMH tradition of international friendship was strong enough for
us to give a genuine welcome, once again to our German, Italian and Japanese members and
their friends.202
In the flux of war, the multicultural hub of SMH became a sanctuary for many who no
longer had a home, such as, An Indo-Chinese music student, interned by the Japanese,
arrived here shortly before Christmas, having taken, as he said, over three years instead of a
few weeks to reach his goal.203 Throughout the conflict, Trevelyan received letters from
SMH members now fighting overseas, such as in April 1942 from, A German refugee Lieut.,
R. A. M. C., from W, Africa who wrote I have found K. (Indian) in charge here. We were
both sure we had met before. In the end we both thought of S.M.H. and we were right!204
Such scenes of international friendship in the most difficult of situations delighted Trevelyan
and persuaded her of the rightness of her work.
201
Lahiri, Indians in Britain, pp. 201-202.

SCM: SMH: S1. Sixth Annual Report, 1943-44.
203
204
202
49
After the war, Trevelyan was quick to promote peace through internationalism, keen
to avoid plunging, the youth of today . . . into another and far more terrible war.205 She
recognized that individuals were not always allied to national boundaries. Jewish refugee
members had been recorded in the Annual Reports as ex-Germany and soon after the war,
Trevelyan noted of them and others that, it would be hazardous to state which country they
officially belonged to at this moment206.
As SMH Warden, Mary Trevelyan was in a unique position of being able to wield the
tools of cultural imperialism. For many overseas students, vulnerable and far from home, she
was a source of advice and friendship. In arranging cultural events at the club, Trevelyan
could have promoted British culture but her encouragement of National Evenings and the
booking of popular but anti-imperialist artists, such as Paul Robeson, whom Trevelyan
described as, Notable among our musical visitors207, reflects a global outlook. The western
lecturers were often people who Trevelyan knew personally, such as Eliot, Bill Paton, and
Julian Trevelyan (her 2nd cousin 1x removed), reflecting her family, friends and SCM
connections rather than a deliberate plan of British cultural dominance. Trevelyan was an
active Christian, but she did not seek to preach Christianity or convert overseas students.
Instead, Trevelyan, like some but not all of those associated with the SCM in this period,
relied on her Christian faith in the promotion of international friendship. In her work at SMH
and her attitudes and actions after the war, Trevelyan remained steadfast in her belief in
peaceful internationalism. SMH was not a conduit of cultural imperialism but a home of
international friendship, even in times of imperial and global conflict.
205

SCM: SMH: S1. Seventh Annual Report, 1945.
207
SCM: SMH: S1 First Annual Report, 1938-1939.
206
50
Conclusion
This essay has questioned whether cultural imperialism was active in the metropole
through the work and ideals of Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House between 1932
and 1946. While examining the impact of Empire on the society and culture of the metropole
and looking at the presence of cultural imperialism at home, this dissertation has explored
only a small percentage of the imperial population in Britain, with its focus on overseas
students in London.
At first glance, the small world of SMH appeared to embody a post-First World War
cultural shift to metropolitan and domestic concerns. This inwardness was, to Mary
Trevelyan and those involved with SMH and SCM, one aspect of a concern about anti-British
sentiment in the Empire, particularly India. That racial discrimination was experienced
almost universally by black students in 1930s London, highlights the contemporary need for
greater understanding between people of different nations. However, as Trevelyan fully
realized on her 1936-7 tour, racism and its effects spread far beyond the metropole to the
wider Empire. This contributed to the development of Trevelyans internationalist outlook.
At SMH, Trevelyan worked against racism, creating one of the few welcoming havens in
London for black students of the interwar years.
In one way, Trevelyan appears to fit with Saids sense of formal orientalism in that she
sought to gain knowledge of colonial peoples in the metropole and in the Empire. She did
want to have an impact on the thoughts of colonial, particularly those from India, and
specifically on their attitudes towards Britain. However, it is questionable that she fulfilled
Saids criteria of cultural imperialist in that it is uncertain that she was motivated by
imperialistic concerns. To this extent, her views were shared at the highest level of
government, as evinced by the involvement in SMH of Lord Halifax, British Foreign
51
Secretary between 1938 and 1940. Yet Halifaxs participation does not prove that missionary
attitudes to empire in this period reflected those of politicians in general. The government of
the 1930s and 1940s was not driven by Christian teachings. The leaders of the SCM and
Trevelyan based their concerns on the unhappiness of individuals as well as anxiety at the
effects of anti-British feeling. As Hall wrote of Macaulay that his was a secular mission, so
this dissertation shows that Trevelyan was influenced throughout her life by Christian aims
and values. Hers was not a mere secular project.
Trevelyan worked closely with the SCM and those associated with it. In some ways, her
work at SMH reflected changes in British Christian mission in the period, but in other ways
she followed her own vision. SMH promoted international friendship at a time when SCM
and its associates in the higher echelons of the Church of England were promoting
ecumenicalism. Thus the SCM became inter-denominationalist while SMH became
internationalist, welcoming students from the empire and beyond, even declared Nazis. As
William Temple used his position to work less on foreign mission and more on domestic
social problems, Mary Trevelyan used hers not to promote Christianity overseas but to
practise Christian principles at home. If this was cultural imperialism it was subtler than
previous attempts at conversion, or establishment of English language schools. She was
greatly influenced by her Christian faith and proud to speak of it, but did not try to convert or
force her views on any of the students. Instead, Trevelyan was blatant in her promotion of the
culture of internationalism.
Trevelyans outward-looking stance, ever conscious of the impact the club had in the
wider world, fits better with Dunchs argument of a globalisation discourse in the missionary
movement in its embrace of international friendship. During this period, there were clear
signs of a cultural focus on peace and internationalism. That these were growing at a time of
international armament increases, virulent anti-Semitism, and increasingly active nationalist
52
and other political movements only seeks to highlight the need and desire on the part of some
for international friendship. Missionaries and leading Christians of the 1930s and 40s
permeated less cultural imperialism, more cultural internationalism. Evident in the writing
and actions of those involved with SCM and the SMH, such as in its equal embrace of
students of all backgrounds including non-imperial citizens, the values of internationalism
contradicted the imperialist values of Second World War military campaigns. As early as
1932, the SCM and Trevelyan were, perhaps unconsciously, preparing for the end of Empire,
particularly the independence of India.
In his account of the globalisation discourse in relation to cultural imperialism, Dunch
assesses how missionaries who held condescending or racist views may have contributed,
even unwittingly, to the concept of a civilizing mission. Although Trevelyans nephew
considered her condescending, overseas students regarded her club as one of the most
welcoming places in London. Where she did condescend, it was not on grounds of being
foreign or coloured, but to those who were unfocused in study. Her forward-looking
dreams and pragmatic approach to creating a residential international house little resemble
the attitudes and behaviour of earlier missionaries. Her promotion of non-Western culture
through the lectures and performances at SMH contrast with the desire of earlier missionaries
to civilize by imposing British cultural values. Trevelyan was even against proselytizing
in the club something which set her apart from her SCM employers. In some ways typical
of her generation and class, Mary Trevelyan was atypical in her idealism and optimism for
world peace and friendship in a time of major international tension and conflict.
53
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Manuscripts
Special Collections, University of Birmingham, Records of the Student Christian Movement,
SECTION S: Student Movement House
S0. S.M.H. Conference 1932.
S1. S.M.H. Annual Reports 1 11 and Appeals - 1938, 1946.
S8. S.M.H. Suggestion Book 1945 1947.
S17. S.M.H. Beginnings 1915 1920.
S18. S.M.H. 1932-1959.
S19. S.M.H. 1937 1941.
S20. S.M.H. 1944 1950.
S21. S.M.H. Appeals 1946 1960, 1962 1965.
S34. S.M.H. 1917 1941 Statistics of members.
Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, Paton, William (1886-1943),
Secretary International Missionary Council: correspondence, 1910-43.
Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS Am 1691.2, T. S. Eliot's Letters to Mary
Trevelyan (1940-1956).
Newspapers and periodicals
Aberdeen Journal
Carfax (Student Movement House, 1925)
Cheltenham Chronicle
Gloucester Citizen
The Times
54
Printed Sources
An International Club for Students of All Nations. Student Movement House Appeal, etc.
(London: Student Movement House, 1946)
A Club for Students of all Nations (London: Student Movement House, 1938)
Trevelyan, Mary, African Student at Home, African Affairs, Vol. 54, No. 214, 1955, pp. 3741.
____________, Foreigners: Christian Focus. no. 6 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh House Press,
1952).
____________, From the Ends of the Earth: An account of the author's experiences as
Warden of the Student Movement House (London: Faber & Faber, 1942).
____________, I'll Walk Beside You. Letters from Belgium: September 1944-May 1945
(London, Longmans & Co., 1946).
____________, Reconstruction Problems in Southeast Asia, Unesco Courier, Vol. 1, No. 6,
1948, p. 2.
____________, The Place of the African Student in the International Student Community,
African Affairs, Vol. 62, No. 248, 1963, pp. 258-261.
Secondary Sources
Adi, Hakim, West Africans in Britain, 1900-1960: Nationalism, Pan-Africanism, and
Communism (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1998).
Ahmad, Aijaz, Between Orientalism and Historicism: Anthropological Knowledge of India,
Studies in History, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1991, pp. 135-163.
______, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures (London: Verso, 1992).
Ahmed, Rehana & Mukherjee, Sumita, South Asian Resistances in Britain 1858-1947
(London: Continuum, 2012).
55
Anderson, Gerald H. ed., Biographical Dictionary of Christian Missions (New York:
Macmillan Reference USA, 1988).
Andrews, C. F., Mahatma Gandhis Ideas (New York: Macmillan, 1930).
Baxendale, John, I had seen a lot of Englands: J B Priestley, Englishness and the People,
History Workshop Journal, Vol. 2001, No. 51, 2001, pp. 87-111.
Bebbington, D. W., Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s
(London: Unwin Hyman, 1989).
Beddoe, Deidre, Back to Home and Duty: Women Between the Wars, 1918-39 (London:
Pandora, 1989).
Berkeley-Hill, O., All Too Human: An Unconventional Autobiography (London: Peter
Davies, 1939).
Bingham, Adrian, An era of domesticity? Histories of women and gender in interwar
Britain, Cultural and Social History, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2004, pp. 225-233.
Bliss, Kathleen, J. H. Oldham (1874-1969): From Edinburgh 1910 to the World Council of
Churches, in Anderson, Gerald H., Coote, Robert T., Horner, Norman A and Phillips, James
M. (ed.s), Mission Legacies: Biographical Studies of Leaders of the Modern Missionary
Movement (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994).
Bourne, Stephen, Black Poppies, History Today, Vol. 63, No. 10, 2013, pp.52-56.
Boyd, Robin, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, International Bulletin, Vol.
31, No. 1, 2007, pp.3-8.
Bruce, Steve, The Student Christian Movement: A Nineteenth Century Movement and its
Vicissitudes, The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 2,
No. 1, 1982, pp. 67-82.
Caedel, Martin, The King and Country Debate, 1933: Student Politics, Pacifism and the
Dictators, The Historical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1979, pp. 397-422.
56
Cain, Peter J., 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.
Cannadine, David, G. M. Trevelyan: a Life in History. (London: Harper Collins, 1992).
Carey, Hilary M. ed., Empires of Religion (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
Carpenter, Humphrey, Poor Tom: Mary Trevelyans View of T. S. Eliot, English, Vol. 30,
No. 160, 1989, pp. 37-52.
Cesarani, David, Robin, Antony, Kushner, Jeremy, The Internment of Aliens in Twentieth
Century Britain (London: Taylor & Francis, 1993).
Clements, K. W., Faith on the Frontier: A Life of J.H. Oldham (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1999).
______, Keith (ed.), The Moot Papers: Faith, Freedom and Society 1938-1944 (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 2009).
Cohn, Bernard S., The Command of Language and the Language of Command, in Guha, R.
ed., Subaltern Studies IV: Writings on South Asian History and Society (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1985).
______________, Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1996).
Cooper, Frederick & Stoler, Ann Laura, Tensions of Empire (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1997).
Cox, Jeffrey, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700 (New York: Routledge, 2008).
Devlin, Patrick, Pacifist Propaganda, The English Review, 1908-1937, , 1927, pp. 292-298.
Dunch, Ryan, Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Cultural Theory, Christian Missions, and
Global Modernity, History and Theory, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2002, pp. 301-325.
Eliot, T. S., Notes Towards a Definition of Culture (London: Faber, 1948).
57
English, Jim, Empire Day in Britain, 1904-1958, The Historical Journal, Vol. 49, No. 1,
2006, pp. 247-276.
Etherington, Norman, ed., Missions and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Fairfield, Zoe, The Womans Movement (London: SCM Press, 1914).
Fryer, Peter, Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain (London: Pluto, 2010).
Gordon, Lyndall, The Imperfect Life of T. S. Eliot (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001).
Graves, Robert & Hodge, Alan, The Long Week End: A Social History of Great Britain,
1918-1939 (New York, Macmillan Co., 1941).
Gray, A. Herbert, The Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, Vol. 43, No. 11,
1932, pp. 558-61.
Hall, Catherine, Civilising Subjects: Metropole and Colony in the English Imagination, 18301867 (Cambridge: Polity, 2002).
____________ ed., Cultures of Empire: A Reader (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2000).
____________, Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2012).
____________ & Rose, Sonya ed.s, At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and
the Imperial World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Harding, Christopher, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910, by
Brian Stanley, English Historical Review, Vol. 76, No. 521, 2011, pp. 996-998.
Henderson, G. D., Fifty Years of the Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times,
Vol. 50, No. 11, 1939, pp. 520-523.
Hodgson (ed.), Leonard, The Second World Conference on Faith and Order, Edinburgh 1937
(London: SCM, 1938).
Hopkins, C. H., John R. Mott, 1865-1955: A Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
58
1979).
Huber, Mary Taylor & Lutkehaus, Nancy C. ed.s, Gendered Missions: women and men in
missionary discourse and practice (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999).
Jackson, E. M., Paton, William, in Gerald H. Anderson ed., Biographical Dictionary of
Christian Missions (New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 1988).
James, C. L. R. (Laughlin, Nicholas, ed.), Letters (Oxford: Prospect Press, 2003).
Jones, Heather, As the Centenary Approaches: The Regeneration of First World War
Historiography, The Historical Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2013, pp. 857-878.
Kean, Hilda, Searching for the past in present defeat: the construction of historical and
political identity in British feminism in the 1920s and 1930s, Womens History Review, Vol.
3, No. 1, 1994, pp. 57-80.
Kolsky, Elizabeth, Colonial Justice in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2009).
Lackey, Michael, The Moot Papers: Faith Freedom and Society 1938-1947,
Modernism/Modernity, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010, pp. 959-962.
Lahiri, Shompa, Indians in Britain. Anglo-Indians Encounters, Race and Identity, 1880-1930
(London: Cass, 2000).
Latourette, Kenneth Scott, Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the
International Missionary Council. in Rouse, Ruth & Neill, Stephen Charles ed.s, A
History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948 (Geneva: World Council of Churches,
1954).
____________________, A History of Christianity (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1954).
Leavis, F. R., Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture (Cambridge: The Minority Press,
1930).
Light, Alison, Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism Between the Wars
59
(London: Routledge, 1991).
Louis, William Roger, Still More Adventures with Britannia: Personalities, Politics and
Culture in Britain (London: I B Tauris, 2003).
Macaulay, Thomas Babington, The History of England from the Accession of James II. 1848
61. Vol. 1 (London: J. M. Dent, 1906).
Mackenzie, John, Edward Said and the Historians, Nineteenth-Century Contexts, Vol. 18,
No. 1, 1994, pp. 9-25.
_____, ed. Imperialism and Popular Culture (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1986).
_____, ed. Popular Imperialism and the Military (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1992).
_____, Propaganda and Empire: the manipulation of British public opinion, 1880-1960
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984).
_____, Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1995).
Martin, Hugh, The Student Christian Movement: A survey of its history and growth (London,
SCM Press, 1924).
Martin, Hugh, Tatlow, Tissington (1876-1957), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Matera, Marc, Black Internationalism and African and Caribbean Intellectuals in London,
1919-1950, PHD dissertation, Rutgers University, 2008.
Midgley, Clare, Gender and Imperialism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998).
Mott, John R., The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions (Toronto: The Missionary Society of
the Methodist Church, 1910).
Mukherjee, Sumita, Nationalism, Education and Migrant Identities: The England-returned
60
(Abingdon: Routledge, 2010).
Murphy, Robert, A Rival to Hollywood? The British Film Industry in the Thirties, Screen,
Vol. 24, No. 4-5, 1983, pp. 96-107.
Northcott, Cecil Martin, Hugh (1890-1964), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Oldham, Henry Wingate, The Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland. Its
origin, development, and present position. (London: British College Christian Union, 1899).
Oldham, J. H., The World and the Gospel, 3rd ed. (London: United Council for Missionary
Education, 1917).
Paton, David, Christian Missions and the Judgment of God (London: SCM Press, 1953).
Paton, William, Social Ideals in India (London: SCM Press, 1919).
Pope, R., Unemployed Women in Interwar Britain: the Case of the Lancashire Weaving
District, Womens History Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2000, pp.743-59.
Porter, Bernard, The Lion's Share: A Short History of British Imperialism, 1850-1995 (3rd
edn., London: Pearson, 1996).
Porter, Andrew, Religion Versus Empire?: British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas
Expansion, 1700-1914 (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2004).
Porter, Dennis, Orientalism and its Problems in The Politics of Theory, ed. F. Barker, et al.
(Colchester: University of Essex, 1983).
Richards, Jeffrey, Patriotism with Profit: British Imperial Cinema in the 1930s in Curran,
J. & Porter, V., British Cinema History (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1983).
Robert, Dana L., The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant
Missionary Movement between the World Wars, International Bulletin of Missionary
Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2002, pp. 50-66.
Said, Edward W., Culture and Imperialism (London: Vintage, 1994).
61
_____The Imperial Spectacle (Aida). Grand Street, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1987, pp. 82-104.
_____. Musical Elaborations. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991).
_____. Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies and Community. Hal Foster. ed.
Postmodern Culture. (London: Pluto Press, 1985).
_____. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Ltd, 1978).
_____, Orientalism Reconsidered. Francis Barker & al. eds., Literature, Politics
and Theory. (London, New York, Methuen, 1986. pp. 210-229).
Springhall, J. O., Lord Meath, Youth, and Empire, Journal of Contemporary History,
Vol. 5, No. 4, 1970, pp. 97-111.
Stanley, Brian, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2009).
_____, Edinburgh 1910 and the Genesis of the IRM, International Review of Mission, Vol.
100, No. 2, 2011, pp. 149-159.
Stevenson, John & Cook, Chris, Britain in the Depression (London: Longman, 1994)
Tabili, Laura, We Ask for British Justice. Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial
Britain (New York: Cornell University Press, 1994).
Tatlow, Tissington, The Story of the Student Christian Movement (London: SCM Press,
1933).
____, William Temple, Religion in Education, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1945, pp. 31-34.
Taylor, A. J. P., English History 1914-45 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965).
Thorne, Susan, Congregational Missions and the Making of an Imperial Culture in
Nineteenth Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Tomlinson, John, Cultural Imperialism: a critical introduction (London: Pinter, 1991).
62
Trevelyan, G.M., An Autobiography and other essays (London: Longmans, Green & Co.,
1949).
_______., History of England (London: Longman, 1973).
Trevelyan, William Pitt, Boarding Out Poor Law Children (London: Christian Knowledge
Society, 1895).
Visram, Rozina, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: Indians in Britain 1700-1947 (London: Pluto,
1986).
Walvin, James, Black and White: The Negro and English Society 1555-1945 (London: Allen
Lane, 1973).
Webster, C., 'Healthy or Hungry Thirties?, History Workshop Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1982,
pp. 110-129.
Winder, Robert, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain (London: Abacus,
2005).
Woollacott, Angela, To Try Her Fortune in London (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Websites
Hastings, Adrian, 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.
Student Christian Movement http://www.movement.org.uk/
World Student Christian Federation http://www.wscfglobal.org/

Cultural Imperialism at Home? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House, 1932-1946

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cultural Imperialism at Home? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House, 1932-1946

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME?

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

Changes in the Metropole

Imperial subjects in the metropole

Visram, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p, 190.

Bourne, Black Poppies, p. 52.

Walvin, Black and White, p. 211.

Experiences of overseas students in Britain

Visram, Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 183.

Lahiri, Indians in Britain, p. 123.

Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement, p. 465.

Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, pp. 3-8.

Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 233.

Martin, The Student Christian Movement, p. 10

Mary Oldham, nee Fraser, wife of J. H. Oldham.

Jackson, Paton, William, p. 519.

Mary Trevelyan (1897-1983)

Student Movement House: For Students of All Nations?

Trevelyan, From the Ends of the Earth, p. 23.

SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1938.

Trevelyan, ibid., p. 23.

SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1946.

Cultural Imperialism or Cultural Internationalism?

The Spectator, 1 September 1938, p. 5.

SCM: SMH: S1 First Annual Report, 1938-1939.

Lahiri, Indians in Britain, pp. 201-202.

SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1946.

S-ar putea să vă placă și