Talk:Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts

Note to editors: This article has been merged with USPG.

Untitled section

The original arrangements for Kirchenbergen lease (from 1841) are unclear. The family of Johann Samuel Kuchel and wife Johanne Dorothea (nee Klenke) are recorded as moving to Kirchenbergen in 1845, after residing briefly in Klemzig, South Australia and in Hahndorf township.

Samuel's sons Frederich Wilkelm (always known by his second name) and Johann Christian left Kirchenbergen in 1872. Christian returned briefly in March 1881 and married Johanne Louise Hirte, and gain left in September to take up land near Murray Bridge.

It is unclear when the parents Johann Samuel and wife Johanne Dorothea left Kirchenbergen and under what circumstances.

Johann Samuel died in Murray Bridge on 5 February 1900, aged 85. His wife had died at Swanport on 21st November 1891, aged 77.

---

Extract from Kuchel family history (1838-1970) Hahndorf, South Australia

"Kirchenbergen comprised three sections of land totalling about 240 acres [1 km²] out of 400 acres [1.6 km²] of Crown lands in a special survey that was purchased by the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts on 15th May, 1841. It cannot be ascertained under what tenure the Kuchels held Kirchenbergen originally, but in 1863 the Society for the Propogation of the Gospel granted them a lease (in which they were described as "farmers") for a period of 20 years.

The rent was fixed at 89 pounds a year for the first seven years and 89 pounds a year for the remainder of the term, so they allowed for inflation in those days. Among the conditions of the lease were:

- to cultivate and to plant on the said land during the first seven years 4.5 acres [18,000 m²] of vines,

- to repair, uphold, amend and keep in repair the erections, buildings and fences upon the said premises, and

- not to let, underlet or assign over or otherwise part with any portion of the said premises without the consent in writing of the said Society."

--203.26.206.129 10:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)Chris Williams

Slave owning

I have a feeling that Rev Bessant's comments probably refer to other slaves held privately by the Bishop of Exeter, and that Hochschild's comment re the SPG holdings is probably correct.

Some of these 'gentleman bishops' of the 18th-19th centuries were extremely independently wealthy and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he had personal interests in the West Indies plantations. I would suggest deleting most of the last two paragraphs, perhaps keeping the Hochschild quotation. -- Agendum 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed about the wealth of imperial British bishops and Upper Clergy, but it's also true that corruption was widespread, a habit that got entrenched in the clergy during the reformation, when the property of the catholic church was seized and "redistributed", subsequently the state, judges and so on very frequently treated individual clergy as "owning" in some way what had originally been church property. I will get references to support this, but it was very frequent that this was the case. In ordinary churches for example, even into recent times, land sold from churches frequently went into the pockets of the clergyman concerned. I fear the devoted Anglicans trying to correct this are engaging in the strange propaganda exercize some christians undertake of trying to whitewash their church's profoundly corrupt and degenerate history. For many centuries the Church of England was a primary instrument of state oppression in Britain. MarkThomas 10:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Having now read up on this, I propose to remove the paragraphs about bishops' slave-owning, as it has absolutely no connection with the Codrington Estates or with the SPG. There may be justification for a separate article on this subject, but it doesn't belong here. Slaves on the Codrington plantations in Barbados were owned by the SPG and managed by their agents. None of them were ever individually owned by bishops of the church. – Agendum 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If the bishops never owned the slaves, why were they personally recompensed when they were sold? This interesting fact points at personal ownership and was a widespread phenomenon. I can't see why you want to remove something both factual and (to modern eyes) very very revealing and interesting. MarkThomas 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it does not relate to the slaves of the Codrington Estates managed by the SPG. – Agendum 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The story is specifically about Codrington. The slaves were sold and Bishop Philpott got the money. Everyone dealing with the matter must have believed he owned them. MarkThomas 09:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The history of Codrington and the SPG simply does not substantiate this. In fact, far from it being the case, there was considerable opposition growing - both within the Church of England and without - regarding the owning of slaves, and the SPG trustees were increasingly uncomfortable about this, as shown in the minutes of their annual meeting. It would have been quite impossible for the bishop of Exeter to have owned slaves privately there - as they were owned by the Society. He may possibly have owned slaves in some other plantations elsewhere, but it wasn't at Codrington.

I would suggest seeking some evidence to support your contention - perhaps Simon Bessant can provide a source? – Agendum 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask Agendum, as a modern evangelical, why does it matter to you to prove no bad behaviour by an 18th century church of england bishop? They were all mired in the most despicable corruption. You can go and admire his palace outside Exeter, built on the suffering, torture and murder of deportees to the Caribean. Is it hard for you to face that the church did this? MarkThomas 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The new buillet point paragraphs by Pclemison appear to be little more than promotion for the USPG and are not appropriate in the introduction of an encyclopedia article (about the old SPG). Recommend that these are deleted or, at least, inorporated into one paragraph. – Agendum 08:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Have made amendments. However, the change was made when it was noted that SPG still exists in the form of USPG, which was not clear by the original format to the page which seemed to have its focus on the slave trade. I have not deleted this, rather allowed it to be shown in proper context. --Pclemison 10:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Henry Phillpotts

The claim by Rev Bessant regarding Bishop Phillpotts and the SPG holdings in the Codrington Estate is unsubstantiated. He has been unable to provide any evidence to back up the claim, and there is no mention of the bishop in the history of Codrington by J. Harry Bennett. – Agendum 13:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you say what your information is that "he has been unable to provide any evidence to back up the claim" please? So far I have only found an address on the web for him in Blackburn from his Diocesan site, so I assume you have not been in email contact? Also, the BBC source quoted says he did say that, so I think to remove it you need to support your statement above. MarkThomas 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rev Bessant did make certain claims about Bishop Phillpotts and the BBC did report them accurately. However there is nothing in the literature on the Codrington Estate to give him any evidence to link Phillpotts with that particular plantation. He may, of course had slave holdings elsewhere in the Caribbean, on even on other plantations on Barbados.

The only owner of the Codrington plantations was the SPG, who administered the estate through local managers. The final decisions were, however, made by a committee of eminent Anglican clergymen and bishops, who sought to deal wisely and fairly with the clear embarrassment of finding themselves responsible for plantations and slave holdings at a time when the public tide was turning against the slave trade. Bishop Phillpotts was not amongst these men. – Agendum 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In your comment when you deleted you said "removed unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims" - yet the article only claims that Revd Bessant said that, which is true. You now say there is nothing in the literature to justify, yet above you say he has been unable to provide evidence - when I challenge you on that, you revert to generalised statements. Weasel words. The statement stays. I have contacted Revd Bessant to ask him to comment. MarkThomas 10:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear what he has to say. I think you and I have more in common than you give me credit for, as I have no agenda apart from seeking to arrive at the truth - and certainly not to excuse the actions of the many thousands of Britons who were actively involved in, and benefited from the despicable slave trade. This may or may not have included bishop Phillpotts - I don't know. But I am certain he was not associated with the Codrington estates, and I believe that Rev Bessant wrongly connected him with them. Weasel words? - no, not mine! – Agendum 13:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My colleague has been in touch directly with Rev Bessant, who has been unable to provide any clear references to the owning of slaves by bishops, far less by Phillpotts. The only citation he gave was to Hochschild's book, which has no reference to bishop Phillpotts – I have checked. So, I have replaced the figures originally quoted with those that are more appropriate to the article (taken from Bennett's book about the Codrington Plantations). – Agendum 00:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this would be original research; I have corrected the most obviously non-evidential statements in the article and re-inserted Bessant's statement which is at least source-able. The real problem here appears to be about defending the position of SPG in slave-owning, which for my money is utterly indefensible but some editors appear to disagree! MarkThomas 17:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:USPG-logo3.jpg

The image Image:USPG-logo3.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)