Andrew Fuller, 56 Lothbury, London, to [John Ryland, Jr., Bristol], 16-19 January 1809.

56 Lothbury 16 Jan 809

My dr bror

      I have read your Lr to Carey. If you insist on its going it shall go, but to use it appears pregnant with evil, as tending to sink our brethren into dismay. They must conclude “we are not believed by our brethren: Dr Ryland is carried away with Dr B’s [Dr. Claudius Buchanan’s] dissimulation!”

      I have a great deal on my hands, but I will quote their words & his ansr & your conclusion.

   “After a preamble, ^says Marshman^ stating, that the Translations of the SS [Scriptures] now going forward were in a precarious and insecure state, & therefore needed to be upheld by some public Institution (a declaration we cd not sign without contradicting what we had already published) it set forth that a College was hereby instituted to be called the Br. Prop. [British Propaganda], fm wch shd issue Translas of the SS, Lexicons Dictionaries, Grammars &c. The superintendent of this College to be ^ever^ a Clergyman of the Ch. of E. to be chosen by the members of the body. In this College Md Martyn was named professor of Arabic, (who I am certain had not at that time read thro’ an Arabic Gramr, if he has since) myself Professor of Sanscrit, Felix Carey of Bengalee, & Dav. Grant ( a boy whom Dr B. bro’t from Malabar, and committed to our care) Professor of the Malayalin –  A number of other Professorships were left to be filled up afterwards. To this College were to pertain all monies collected for Translations in future, as well as those already solicited, and our press was henceforth to be called the Press of the British Propaganda. It was however added in a Note that no alterations need ^be made^ in the buildings belonging to the Mission before intelligence shd arrive from Europe.

            This plan [was] unparalled for sapience, we were requested to sign while the Messenger waited – Instead of this it was agreed for bror Carey & myself to wait on Mr Brown with a verbal refusal, wch we did – stating that we had many objections to the plan itself, but waving these, it was impossible for us consistant with our obligations to the Society in Engd to sign a paper wch alienated all the property of the Mission of wch we were only trustees, and place it on another foundation.”

                                                         Marshman Aug. 6 1807

      “Dr B. some time ago ^says Carey^ made a very disingenuous attempt to subject the translations, & indeed the whole mission, to a clergyman of the Ch. of E. We contested the matter with him, & were more obstinate than he thought! The consequence is, that he had idly appropriated a part of the funds raised in our name for the translations, in enormous salaries to two or three persons who are under the direction of the Mr Martyn, who is not awake to his ambitious designs.”

                                                                     Carey Jan. 14. 1808

To this add Carey’s last Lr of Ap. 20 808 wch I sent you; and I beseech you carefully read it over.

      To these broad facts Dr B. in his Lr to you says – “Don’t be alarmed – They were in perfect harmony when I came away” – That is, Mr B. had acknowleged himself in the error and all was for the present overlooked. Carey in his Lr of Ap. 20. 808 “We saw plainly & I had long seen Dr B’s ambitious designs, & that Mr B. was his devoted tool: but as we had recd the greatest part of the money subscribed and were receiving, & as the Circumstances, tho’ uncomfortable, did not impose anything on our Consciences, we tho’t it better to maintain frendship (especially with Mr B.) as long as possible, though we saw plainly that it must end in a rupture.” This was the “perfect harmony[”] that subsisted when Dr B. came away.

      Dr B. goes on “The chief difficulty appears to be this, the 2000£ was voted to the Corresponding Committee; whereas no Committee was ever formed, at least in my time.” Ansr 1. This was not the chief difficulty: the Missionaries were never anxious about the 2000£ nor did they know of it in Dr B’s time; no, nor he himself. They did not wish for the 2000£ unless the Bib. Society chose to give them a power of controul as to its application. 2. The 2000£ was not voted to the Corresponding Committee, but to the encouragement of the Translations then carrying on by the Missions at Serampore, & the Corresponding Committee was nominated half Churchmen & half dissenters, for the purpose of carrying the business into execution. 3. If no Committee was formed in Dr Bs time, was it not owing to himself, and to his ambitions & party motives measures, in aiming to confine it to churchmen? 

      But Dr B. “lately informed the Bib. S. [Bible Society] that this was of no consequence as he doubted not that Mr B. & Mr Carey (whom they supposed to belong to the Committee) wd apply the money to the purposes intended.” I never recollect reading a sentence more replete with ^Jesuitical evasion^. The Bib. Socy supposed Mr C. to be of the Committee; but does Dr B. suppose this? No, he doubtless believes the contrary: and we know it by Careys Lr of Ap. 20 808 where we are informed that by the proposals made by Mr B. to the Misss [Missionaries], after he had recd the order respecting the 2000£, they saw that the application of this money, Mr Grants Legacy, and the assumed management thereof was a decided point.” – Yet because the Bib. Society, through being ignorant of matters suppose what is not true, Dr B. can infer that doubtless Mr B. & Mr C. will do the business!

      As to all he says, of the Xn Institution, I doubt whether such a Society ever existed, & so does Ld Teignmouth [former Governor of Bengal and first President of the Bible Society], & scruples not to say so. The fuss that is made both by him & Mr B. of other translations is only to eclipse those at Serampore seeing they cannot subjugate them to themselves – This however I say only to you. –

      “Immediately on the Estabt of the Xn Institution it was resolved ^that the monies^ wch had been subscribed in the name of the bap. Misss shd be applied to the works of the bapt Mission, which has been done to the last farthing.” Who resolved on this? What did this resolution amount to? Was not Sabat paid out of this fund 200 Rupees pr Month? and then himself & his translation taken away? What right had the Xn Institution to resolve on the application of monies which were not their own? The monies wch remained in the hands of Alexr & Co wch had been raised in the Misss names cd be no otherwise applied to the works of the Bap. Mission when Dr B came away than in intention. They had not recd it. If therefore it was so applied it can only mean that it was laid by as it were, to be paid them as wages, and not as their own. This conduct Ld Teignmouth reprobates one of the mildest & calmest men that breathes, reprobates.

      “Messrs F. Carey, & Marshman &c were invited (not as Misss but as linguists) to become members of the College for Translations wch is only another name for the Xn Institution; but they declined it.” This however seemed of no consequence, as they wd go on with their own work, as  before, and the Xn Institution was ready to give them every aid.” The air of indifference with which this man can ^stand &^ throw dust in his readers eyes is marvellous! – “Not as missionaries but as linguists” – And who ever thought they were invited as missionaries? Who does not know also that it was Dr B’s aim to reduce the Translators to mere linguists, or a superior sort of brahmans, who shd work under the Xn Institution? – this the grand agent, & they ^are to be its^ instruments. If he had sd The Xn Institution is only anor name for the Brith Propaganda it had been accurate. “The Xn Institution wd aid them” – Yes, by lavishing on other men who for a while assisted them, their monies! They had no monies of their own ^at the time^ to aid them with.

      Mistakes in Carey’s Lr. 1. The Propaganda scheme contained a proposal to alienate all the property of the mission – True, & what is the answer to this serious charge? A denial of the fact – but on what ground? Does he say The Mission premises were not to be given up? No. Were they to be paid for [by] them? No, not a word of the kind. And yet forsooth the alienation of them was “neither expressed nor understood; for it was a professed principle of the Inst.n that it had had no connexion, directly or indirectly with any missy Society!” But what has the ^dis^connexn of this Instn with the Missionary Societies to do with the question of alienation? Nobody imagined it wd have been connected with any Missionary Society, & therefore the Missionaries were not warranted to give up the property of a Misy Society to an object that shd have no connexion with it! This answer appears to me as foolish as it is disingenous. If it be not however, I do not understand it.

      “I only asked the names of 2 or 3 of its members” Indeed! So then, there was no proposal to alienate the premises, but merely promote to honour 2 or 3 of their company! Yet we are sure they understood it otherwise, or they wd not have gone immediately to Mr Brown, & have alleged that as an insurmountable objection. It seems too as if Mr B. must have understood it otherwise, why else did he not reply to them when they made this objection, that they mistook the meaning of the plan, as no such thing as alienation was expressed or to be understood in it? Instead of this, Mr B. <–> ^tacitly^ admitted their objection to be well founded, and only reproach’d them for being so attached to their little paltry mission, as to sacrifice such a plan as this!”

      What to make of Dr Bs answer consistent with veracity I know not. To me it appears much like that of Aaron to Moses, “They gave me the gold, and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf!”      

      “They might have kept it as long as they wished.” I cannot say whether the request to sign it forthwith & return it by the Messenger was by Dr B’s orders; but such was the request.

      2. Funds – “What was collected in the names of the bapt Miss was disposed of to themselves.” If it were so, who authorized Dr B. to dispose of what was not his own, even to its owners. But it was not so, for a large part of the ^13 or^ 14,000 Rupees was sunk in extravagant Salaries to persons who by Dr B’s own confession never were designed to continue with the bap. Missries.

      3. Sabat – Whatever right Dr B. might have to remove this man, he had none to take the Persian & Hindostanee Translations, and still less to continue to allow him 200 Rupees pr Month out of the money in the hands of Alexr & Co.

      4. Treasurer. This direction must have been merely to pay the missionaries ot what was their own at once, but an allowance as from the Chrisn Insn, wch they cd not receive.

      When Dr B. visited the Missionaries, prior to his leaving Bengal, they knew the man & his communications, and therefore avoided every thing upon the subject. To have treated him then in the way he speaks they must not have been men. He seems to know how to assume good nature & mildness on any occasion. I suppose the missionaries were not rude to him, but neither could they be familiar.

      The Bapt Missionaries have not given “publicity to the world of their complaints” but merely to the parties concerned; & that with such reluctance as to incur almost their censure for withholding it.

      And now you tell bror Carey that his letter has embarrassed us, whereas it has disembarrassed us – that he seems suspicous of Dr B. and also of Mr B. & Mr U[dny].” He ^is^ more of the first – He states like a man and a christian the facts wch prove beyond all contradiction his guilt – And the same in degree of the second. As to Mr U. he has sd nothing about him, nor do I believe that he is capable of doing wrong knowingly. He must have been imposed upon.

      “He seems (Dr B.) seems able to clear himself pretty well, & is disposed to be friendly.” When I read his Letter before the Committee, (wch I did after reading my statement taken fm Marshman & Carey, that he might speak for himself, the only comment I heard was “Hypocrite, Hypocrite!” It did more than any thing I said to convince the Committee.

      A general Committee [of the Bible Society] was held yesterday to determine what shd be done. I was present by request. There was enough episcopal partiality, but no one cd vindicate Dr B. nor Mr B. all that was pleaded was that now Dr B. was come away and the amiable Mr Thomasin had succeeded him, it might be hoped that all differences might be adjusted, & the Comee might be formed as the Society had originally desired, viz of three in the Church & 3 out of it, naming the same persons as before, with only the difference of Thomasin for Buchanan. They then proceeded to pass 2 or 3 Resolns requiring 4 out of these six to regulate the application of the monies wch they had before voted; & 4 out of them sign any future draft upon them – Letters also were to be addressed to Messrs B. & U. of a conciliatory nature; & I was requested to write in the same strain to our friends.

      I was aware before I went to the Comee fm a conversation with Ld T. that this wd be the issue. I therefore after leaving him wrote a Lr to him stating what I conceived must be a very great objection in this stage of the business, for our friends to write in a Comee with the others. It was to this effect –

      “When your first resolution was passed in 1804 there were only the translations at Serampore in being: but now accordg to Dr B. & Mr B., there are many more. This may be the case, but if so, what an invidious post will you place the Serampore Miss in to call three of them into a Comee wch will have to sit in Judgt upon the works of other translators. They may approve of them & think them worthy of encouragment fm the Bib. Soc; but they may not, at least in every instance. In this case, shd they speak their minds, they expose themselves to the suspicion of envy; & shd they not speak their minds they betray the trust reposed in them by the Bib. Sociy.” Hence I preferred that whatever the Society chose to give them shd be given to each translation as they thought it deserving, & that each shd be accountable to them for its application. I sd I was certain this wd be most agreeable to the Misss, who had no desire to be taken into the Comee before other translators.

      But Ld T. was so intent on reconciliation, union, & cooperation, that and for the Bib. Socy to recur to its original resolution, that my objecn to him was overruled. I took care however to read this Letter before I sent it to Ld T. to Mr Steven & Mr Rayner [James Stephen and Joseph Reyner, both members of the Bible Society Committee], both of them members not only of the Bib. Socy, but also of The M. S. [most likely a reference to the Church Missionary Society] by wch they wd see that if our friends must act in a Comee while none of their friends were noticed, it was with reluctance on our parts.

      When the Genl Comee proposed restoring the original resolution, our episcopal members objected that the baptist Miss refused to receive monies of the Chrisn Instn, how therefore cd they act together? To this it was ansd The Bib. Sociy knows nothing any more than the Bap. Miss of the Chrisn Instn – They only request the parties to be their agents, in applying such monies as they may vote. I then spoke to the Chairman to this effect. “If I understand the Comee it has nothing to do with the funds of others, but merely with its own. If there be gentlemen in India who chuse to support the Xn Instin, so be it. The same may be sd of the baptists, they receive monies from various quarters as well as the Bib. Socy for the translations – they have a fund and must publish their Accts; but this does not interfere with their forming a Commee to act as agents for the Bib. Socy.” – This was fully assented to; and on these terms I agreed to write our friends in as conciliatory a strain as I could. I left the Comee at 3, and wrote till 10, filling 6 Sheets, telling Carey all about it and concluding with a firm persuasion that they wd do every thing and sacrifice every thing for peace short of a good Consce. My Letter went this morning to Ld T’s to go out with theirs. The Ship is just going. I have not sent yours to Carey for the reasons above: but if you still wish it to go, it will go. I have copied to Carey my long letter to Ld T. containg the charges, and Dr B’s Lr to you, & many other things.

      Before I came to Town G. Burder wrote me a Letter, to wch I sent him an ansr – I mean to send you both with this – but wish to have it returned. I have recd the Tracts of the Resolns of ^the Bib. Socy^ for Jan. 16. 1809.

“Resolved that it be formy recommended to the Corresponding Comee of this Society in Bengal, consisting of G. U. [George Udny] Esq. Rev. D. B. [David Brown] Rev. Tho. Thomasin, Rev. W. Carey D. D., Rev. Wm Ward & Rev. Josha Marshman that all drafts on this Society, in consequence of authory granted by this Comee, be signed by not less than 4 Members of the Corresponding Comee, and that the application of the funds granted by this Society for aiding the translation & printing of the SS. be also made by a resolution of not less than 4 Members of such Corresponding Comee.”

I can at present add no more, but that I am affecy yrs

A.    F.

Jan 19. Thursday.

I set off for Kettg to morrow Morng.

[Ryland has written “1809” at the top of the last page, so the date when the letter was sent out was 19 January 1809.]

Text: NLW MS. 14348D, National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.