This document discusses British Protestant missionaries' role in Britain's changing imperial policy in China from 1925 to 1927. It argues that this period was a crucial turning point that accelerated Britain's retreat from China. The mass labor movements in major Chinese cities in 1925 challenged British influence and prompted the Foreign Office and missionaries to recognize that maintaining pre-1925 status in China was impossible. While historical actors had different perspectives, there was a growing consensus that Britain would need to gradually reduce its formal and informal presence in China.

1. British Protestant Missionaries’
contribution to Britain's Imperial
modification in China from 1925 to
1927
William Wong
BA (Hons) History and Political science (Birmingham)
Msc International and Asian History candidate (LSE)

2. Historial actors
Figure 2, Portrait of Archbishop
of Canterbury Randall Davidson
Figure 3, Portrait of Bishop
Herbert Molony of Chekiang
Figure 1, Portrait of Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs Sir
Austen Chamberlain

3. Shanghai 30th May 1925
- Massive labour movement in Shanghai, Canton and Hong Kong before 1925
- Inspired by KMT and CCP, student began to organized in groups of five to seven to make
speeches and street demonstrations
- Implications? A civil society and political sphere emerging in (coastal) China
- A New consciousness?

4. Academic conversation
Phoebe Chow argued that that the Foreign office has been implementing a gradual
retreat from China since Sir Grey became foreign secretary in 1906.
The May 30th movement’s speeded up a ‘British retreat’ in China. It pressured Austen
Chamberlain and the Foreign Office to make a rapid retreat policy, in order to
depoliticise the crisis
Anthony Best argued that the creation of a formal alliance between Britain and Japan
was a 50 year process, which the Boxer rebellion remind both that they had
commission interest in China.

5. What is my argument?
I argue that 1925 to 1927 was a crucial juncture in Sino-British relations,
because reconfirmed (to the FO and missionaries) and escalated British
withdrawal from China.
Furthermore, Historical actors were in general agreement about this
reality and seek solutions to protect their interests.

6. Primary source findings
CMS sources:
- Bishop Molony had different interpretation of China events in CMS and Lambeth
sources. What was his intentions?
Parliamentary sources:
- Backbenchers vs Frontbenchers had different approaches to the China issue, thereby not
in agreement on
Lambeth Palace sources:
- Archbishop Davidson seems did not fully understood Bishop Molony’s faces in the
imperial metropolis (alongside with Bishop of Salisbury, AC and parliamentary
colleagues)

7. Conclusion
1. Historical actors engaged with different epistemological and ontological approaches,
thereby a difference of discourses and understanding of China events became a research
method issues.
1. During the revision of treaties in 1926, missionaries in China faced legal and succession
issues which were linked to how Whitehall engage with Chinese governments. The
question of information displacement became key in such context, because decisions
made by Whitehall would have unforeseen implication for missionary enterprise.
1. Historical actors came to consensus on Britain’s China policy. It discovered through AC
papers, parliamentary and CMS sources that two consensuses were reached as far as
historical actors were concerned.
1. First, it was a return to pre-1925 status quo was almost impossible, because British China
policy was subjected to foreign countries’ framework. And second, a gradual retreat of
formal and informal influence from China was inevitable.

8. Thanks for watching
Any comments and questions welcomed
William Wong
BA (Hons) History and Political science (Birmingham)
Msc International and Asian History candidate (LSE)