It is impossible in the space remaining to do justice to the continuing complexity of relations between missions and Empire through to 1914. It is nevertheless the variety of those relationships that must be emphasized. Notwithstanding that this was the classical period of ‘high imperialism’, the international networks of the missionary movement continued to expand, detaching themselves from ‘Empire’ as they did so. At the heart of expansionist forces stood the student missionary movement, rooted in late nineteenth- century revivalism and born of the American Student Volunteer Movement in the late 1880s. It grew rapidly to embrace the British Student Volunteer Missionary Union, the Young Men’s (Women’s) Christian Association, and the World Student Christian Federation. Inspired by the faith missions, Keswick’s influence, and its arresting ‘watchword’—‘the evangelization of the world in this generation’—its most striking pre-war achievement was the great World Missionary Conference held at Edinburgh in 1910.
Just as the international, global nature of the missionary movement increasingly set it apart from national governments, so its independence gave missionary leaders greater confidence in dealing with secular authorities, including humanitarian movements. Increasingly missionaries called the humanitarian tune, with humanitarians and bodies such as the Anti-Slavery Society and the Aborigines Protection Society dependent on fluctuating missionary concern. From James Long’s campaign on behalf of Bengali indigo workers in the 1850s to defence of African land rights against white and chartered company rule, and the Congo Reform Association after 1904, it was missions’ capacity to arouse public feeling that gave the humanitarians political weight and compelled the imperial government to take action. Involvement in this high-level political campaigning was, as always, underpinned by the more general growth of a commitment by individual missionaries and ultimately most of their societies to the welfare of indigenous peoples. In the late nineteenth century this still embodied something of the earlier anti-slavery cause. However, it was now more often expressed in support for public works, famine relief, and medical missions, a trend that often reflected the increasing part played by women in the movement as a whole.
The willingness and capacity of the missionary movement to remind imperial authorities of their obligations was not confined to issues of indigenous rights. Missions were also seen agitating for imperial intervention to protect their own rights and freedoms. The partition of Africa gave rise to several such incidents. Demands that the British imperial government preserve missionary interests against untoward threats from the Portuguese, expanding Islam in Nyasaland, and the consequences of a British withdrawal from Uganda, were plentiful and effective. Elsewhere—for example in China and the Middle East—missions were less successful. However, the variability of their record itself demonstrates missionaries’ distance from the Empire. William McCullough wrote feelingly of his experience in India:
It goes against the grain of an orthodox Imperialist like me to do anything in the way of complaining to Parliament about the Indian Government. I think our rulers here are often much injured and hampered by that sort of thing. This feeling on my part does not spring from personal bias. For from European officials in India I have never received anything better than bare civility and very often worse... I’m a missionary first and an Imperialist afterwards and I did not come out here to watch my work being stopped by ‘judicial calmness’.
If in many places the missionary at first needed security and protection, in the aftermath of the European annexations the gradual establishment of administrative controls often caused missionaries once again to distance themselves from Empire and its overlords.