Ballhatchet 1998 Caste, Class and Catholicism in India 1789-1914

CASTE, CLASS AND CATHOLICISM
IN INDIA 1789-1914
Centre of South Asian Studies,
School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London
LONDON STUDIES ON SOUTH ASIA
1. Caste and Christianity

D.E. Forrester
2. British Policy Towards the Indian States
S.R. Ashton
3. The Assamese
A. C. Cantlie
4. Dacca
S.U. Ahmed
5. Crime, Justice and Society in Colonial Sri Lanka
J. W. Rogers
6. Hindu and Christian in South-East India
G.A. Oddie
7. Muslims and Missionaries in Pre-Mutiny India
A.A. Powell
8. A Place for Our Gods
M. Nye
9. Khizr Tiwana, the Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India
I. Talbot
10. John Bullion's Empire
G. Balachandran
11. Landlord Power and Rural Indebtedness in Colonial Sind
D. Cheeseman
12. Krsna's Round Dance Reconsidered
H.R.M. Pauwels
13. Ancient Rights and Future Comfort
P. Robb
14. Tibet and the British Raj
A. McKay
15. Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India
S. Bandyopadhyay
16. James Long of Bengal
G.A. Oddie
17. Caste, Class and Catholicism in India 1789-1914
K. Ballhatchet
CASTE, CLASS AND
CATHOLICISM
IN INDIA 1789-1914
Kenneth Ballhatchet
i~ ~~o~1~~n~~~up
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published in 1998
by Curzon Press
Published 2013 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 1998 Kenneth Ballhatchet

Typeset in Saban by LaserScript, Mitcham, Surrey
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or

reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book has been requested
ISBN 13: 978-0-700-71095-9 (hbk)
Contents
Foreword VB
Preface IX
Acknowledgements Xl
Abbreviations Xlll
Glossary xv
Biographical Note XVB
Maps
Kerala, and Bombay Detail xx
Tamil Nadu, and Madras Detail XXI
I The Vatican and the East Indian Company 1

II The East India Company 13
III Carmelites, Caste, Sex and Conflict in Kerala 23
IV Carmelites and Social Conflict in Bombay 47
V Capuchins, Boatmen and Irishmen in Madras 79
VI French Jesuits and Caste in Tamil Nadu 111
Postscript 141
Notes 145
Bibliography 165
Index 169
v
This page intentionally left blank
Foreword
Kenneth Ballhatchet was a notable Indian historian whom I was

proud to number among my friends. I found his writings and his
conversation always stimulating and challenging. He had the patience
and skill for immense amounts of detailed archival work in mission
archives, in the Vatican and elsewhere. He never became over-
whelmed by masses of data, but used his material to tell a good story
very well and to illumine great tracts of Indian history.
My own work on caste and Christianity was largely confined to
Protestant churches and missions. I was aware, however, that a wide
range of positions were taken up among Roman Catholic orders and
missionaries, and that the controversies about caste arising from the
work of Roberto de Nobili and others were of great historical,
religious and theological significance. Kenneth Ballhatchet's post-
humous book throws a great deal of light on these controversies,
which are of considerable importance for the broader history of
modern India.
I warmly welcome the publication of this book; it deserves a wide
readership.
Duncan B. Forrester
New College University of Edinburgh, November 1997
VII
Preface
This book began as part of an enquiry into European racial attitudes.

In Race, Sex and Class under the Ral, I argued that the English
brought their social attitudes to India, where they became racial
attitudes. In India, as in England, these attitudes had the triple
function of supporting authority structures, protecting vested interests
and providing psychological reinforcement for the ruling class.
Fundamental to these attitudes was the preservation of a wide social
distance between the British and Indians. The French, Dutch and
Portuguese colonial empires present significant differences in racial
and social attitudes. To explore these matters further the attitudes of
Roman Catholic missionaries offered a test case. Unlike Protestant
missionaries hardly any were English. They came from a variety of
European countries. How far were differences in national attitudes
reflected in differences in the racial and social attitudes of European
missionaries in India? French missionaries, for example, tended to
support the caste system, while Irish missionaries were egalitarian. A
further question was how Indians reacted. Here again attitudes to
caste were a fundamental problem, both for priests and for laity, and
they remained a problem after Independence, when Liberation
Theology developed distinctive forms in India. Recently, Father
Antony Raj has advocated the liberation of the untouchables in
Marxist terms. But he sees the struggle in India not as an option only
for the poor (since some untouchables have acquired wealth, perhaps
from military service), but an option for those of lowest status. 2
What of the functions of racial and social attitudes? National
differences apart, one can see among European missionaries, as
among British officials under the Raj, the role of attitudes in
supporting authority structures - especially when missionary author-
ity was challenged by Indian priests or laity. Such challenges usually
IX
CASTE, CLASS AND CATHOLICISM IN INDIA 1789-1914
involved caste. One can also see, as among British officials under the
Raj, the role of attitudes in protecting vested interests, especially the
claims of European missionaries in competition with Indian priests. In
the arguments that resulted, various moral weaknesses were
attributed to Indian priests and laity, such notions providing
psychological reinforcement for a privileged minority.
In analysing these controversies we must tread carefully, for there
were many accusations of sexual immorality. As the venerable
Carmelite historian Ambrosius commented, it would be easy to pass
over such matters in silence. But this would be to falsify the historical
record. And to what end? - Ambrosius demanded. In the long run the
Church itself would be damaged by the suppression of historical
truth. 3 Ambrosius wrote in 1939, and in the more liberal atmosphere
that prevailed after the second Vatican council his views were
reinforced by Pope Paul VI, who encouraged historians to examine
the archives without fear or favour, for the Church could only gain
from fresh historical discoveries conducted in an objective manner.
x
Acknowledgements
I should like to thank the staff of the archives of: Propaganda Fide; the
Jesuit Curia in Rome; the Jesuit archives in Shambaganur and
Toulouse; the Irish College archives in Rome; the India Office Records
in London; the Torre do Tombo in Lisbon; and the Tamil Nadu
records in Madras. Among libraries, I am particularly indebted to
those of the Jesuit Historical Institute and the Pontificia Urbaniana in
Rome, and the School of Oriental and African Studies and the British
Library in London. I have benefited greatly from the advice of Fr. Josef
Metzler, O.M.I., Fr. Chares Borges, S.]., Fr. Francis Edwards, S.J. and
the Revd. Professor Duncan Forrester. Dr Sebastian Ballard not only
prepared the maps but gave me his advice as a geographer. In sickness
and in health my wife Joan's advice has been invaluable. She also
undertook that most tedious of tasks, the preparation of the index. I
have also learnt much from the comments of friends and colleagues at
various conferences and seminars where I have presented papers
related to the themes of this book. I treasure warm memories of such
occasions in Cochin, Lisbon, London, Oxford, Paris, Reunion and
Uppsala.
This research was supported by a Leverhulme European Studies
Fellowship and a Leverhulme Emeritus Fellowship, supplemented by
grants from the British Academy and the School of Oriental and
African Studies. I am most grateful to them.
Xl
Abbreviations
Acta CP Acta Congregationis Particularis super rebus

Sinarum et Indiarum Orientalium
AAES Archivio della Sacra Congregazione degli Affari
Ecclesiastici Straordinari
APF Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda
Fide
ARSI Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu
BEP Bombay Ecclesiastical Proceedings
BPP Bombay Public Proceedings
FMd F Madurai
ICRA Irish College Rome Archives
lOR India Office Records
Ind. Or. India Orientalis
LDB Lettere Decreti e Bolle
MEP Madras Ecclesiastical Proceedings
MPP Madras Public Proceedings
NZM Neue Zeitschrift fur Missionwissenschaft
Oeuvre French lay missionary society, Association for
the Propagation of the Faith
PF Propaganda Fide
SC Collectanea Sacrae Congregationis or Scritture
referite nei Congressi Congregazione
SHC Sacred Heart College. Archives of Jesuit Madura
Mission, now moved from Shembaganur to
Madras
SOCG Scritture Originale riferite nelle Congregazioni
Generali
SOCP Scritture Origin ali della Congregazione
Particolare dell'Indie e Cina
Xlll
Glossary
Board of Control English Government Committee with

supervisory powers over the Court of Directors
Court of Directors London-based controlling body of the East India
Company
discalced Used to distinguish between two branches of the
Carmelite order, the 'shoeless' (discalced) and
sandalled friars.
East Indian Eurasian, especially used of Goanese
Holy Office Final Court of Appeal of the Roman
Congregation
Toddy Tappers Originally Palmyra cultivators; fermented palm
juice is known as toddy.
xv
Biographical Note
Pie'tro d' Alcantara

An Italian discalced Carmelite missionary priest working in the
Bombay area in the late eighteenth century, Alcantara was appointed
as Superior to his community in 1793, when he was thirty-three years
old. At this time the British authorities were anxious to placate the
Portuguese ecclesiastical authority based in Goa - the padroado -
while retaining the services of the Carmelites, under the authority of
Propaganda Fide. Since the Bombay government claimed the right to
determine any disputes arising between the two authorities, transfers
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction could result from the appeals of
dissatisfied laymen. Alcantara's tactful handling of such complaints
resulted in an increase in the number of churches under Roman
control.
Later, as Vicar Apostolic of Bombay, he was responsible for the
pastoral care of a vast area of southern India. He had to travel
frequently to resolve conflicts among his priests and congregations. In
this book his visitations to Madras and Kerala are examined.
When mission funds from Rome were blocked by the French
revolutionary wars Alcantara appealed successfully in 1814 to the
Bombay government for a loan, and was also granted a modest life
pension. he was even able to persuade the East India Company to
finance a seminary for Bombay. He continued in active service until
his death, at the age of eighty, in 1840.
xvii
Maps
C A S T E , CLA SS AN D C A T H O L IC IS M IN IN D IA 1 7 8 9 - 1 9 1 4
BOMBAY Detail
K erala, and
Bom bay Detail
TH ANA
V O
\g V A R S O v A
SA L S E T T E / S J
\ BAM O RA
VBOMBAY 1M AHIM
U ( • • ♦ d « « l)
Arabian \ ,
s.. /
/M A ZA 'U O N J
Bombay
it
Harbour
)
GOA
\ Mangalore
5L
»
\ 0
Ootacumund
K3 \_Verapoll
9 \
X cra n g an ore
O V jC O C H IN
9 . V M a t ta r > c h « r 1
U» \
PAIIeppey
\ c iu ilo n
VoArtungel J
TrtvandnimW ___ t
xx
M A PS
MADRAS Detail Tamil N adu, and

M adras Detail
RAYAPURAWT M ADRAS j
c o r o m a n d e lT p i.~ *•<•«> rj
FORT fy O . Vallor# 1
-gjgl Bangalore 0 **r«,
r
Areo'^ MAILAPUR/
Indian
O ce an Pondlchery /
franquabar
. '
. *.«•'' Karikal*
Trlchlnopoly 0 ---- '
Negapatam
0 Pudukottai
Avur°
s'
Madurai0 J
\ x / .•
\ \ 0 ■ '
\ Kalugumalal0 1-----
\ Tutlcortn/ / ^
X TinnevaHy dManapade
\ Vlravanallur0 ®0 <fPunnayakayaJ
0 Palayamkottal 'jpertyatelel
\Vadakkankulam J G U If Of / SRI
( LANKA
Mannar j
XXI
Chapter I
The Vatican and the East India

Company
This book is concerned with the attitudes of European missionaries

and Indian priests and laymen. It is concerned with two organisations,
the Vatican and the East India Company, each with their own value
systems, one sacred, the other secular. It is also concerned with their
interaction with the attitudes and values of the Hindu world, in which
distinctions between sacred and secular were irrelevant, in which the
social order was also a spiritual order, and status in this life was the
reward of virtue or the punishment of vice in previous lives. Caste was
therefore fundamental to the Hindu world, and missionaries were
greatly puzzled by its persistence among Catholics. Castes were
allowable if they were merely social, like classes in Europe. But if
hereditary membership of a caste implied spiritual merit or demerit it
contradicted the principle that all men were equal before God, and it
could not be allowed. Or perhaps it could be allowed among
Christians because they thought it merely a social matter?
Was it relevant that Christians had long been allowed their place in
Hindu society, at least in Kerala? It was widely believed in South
India, and not only by Christians, that the Apostle Thomas was
martyred there. Certainly there were Christians in Kerala from the
sixth century, when the Nestorian church in Syria embarked on
vigorous missionary work overseas. The theology of the church in
Kerala was Nestorian, l and its liturgy was in Syriac. Clearly, Syrian
influence was fundamental, but Christians there were also affected by
Hindu culture. They were accorded a high status in Hindu society,
married within their own community, kept aloof from low castes and
never tried to convert them. In these ways the ancient Syrian church
resembled a caste, and lived undisturbed for centuries in South India.
Vigorous proselytising activity began with the Portuguese in the
sixteenth century. Their missionaries quickly made converts, mainly in
1
South India, and as a result of their efforts the majority of Syrian

Christians accepted Papal authority. Successive Popes granted the
Portuguese monarchy rights of padroado, or patronage and control,
over dioceses in the East, and despatches from the Vatican were
granted the royal bene placitum, or validation, before they were sent
on from Lisbon to Goa, which became the centre of Portuguese
missionary activity in Asia. Portuguese culture, and especially the
encouragement of intermarriage, established Goanese Catholics as a
distinct community closely linked with Portugal but nevertheless a
part of Indian society.
Portuguese missionary energies flagged in the seventeenth century,
however, and the Vatican supplemented them by creating in 1622 a
new missionary institution, the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda
Fide. This sent out its own missionaries to areas beyond Portuguese
reach, under Vicars Apostolic with episcopal rank. In the hope of
conciliating Portuguese opposition these Vicars Apostolic were
assigned the titles of sees in partibus infidelium, in other words sees
which could no longer function because they were located in areas
under Muslim rule. But the Portuguese authorities were never
reconciled to this stratagem, which seemed to them an evasion of
the letter and also the spirit of the padroado.
In the second half of the eighteenth century, tense relations
between Rome and Lisbon were exacerbated by secularising policies
inaugurated by the Portuguese government. Relations were further
increasingly strained by controversies about the activities of
missionaries sent by Propaganda Fide who operated in areas which
the Portuguese thought belonged properly to the padroado. As a
result there were various conflicts over jurisdiction between
Portuguese Bishops and Vicars Apostolic. Eventually sees in India
were left vacant for want of Papal authority. As a result of the
disagreements between Rome and Lisbon there were sharp divisions
in the Catholic map of India towards the end of the eighteenth
century. Under the padroado regime of the Archbishop of Goa there
were the Portuguese Bishoprics of Mailapur, Cranganore and
Cochin, with Portuguese and Goanese priests. Under Propaganda
Fide there were the Vicars Apostolic in Bombay,2 Malabar (Kerala),
Pondichery and the vaguely named district of Tibet-Hindustan, with
Italian Carmelites in Bombay and Kerala, French Capuchins and
secular priests of the Missions Etrangeres in Tamil Nadu, French
Capuchins in Madras town and a few Italian Capuchins in north
India.
2
THE VATICAN AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY
The Indian missions suffered during the Revolutionary and

Napoleonic wars. Communication with India became increasingly
difficult, and Propaganda Fide's funds were depleted during the
French occupation of Rome. For the next fifty years or so there were
lively controversies among Catholics in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras
and Kerala. Disputes among the Capuchins in Madras were
particularly spirited, and in Vatican circles unfavourable comparisons
were made with Bombay, where the Carmelite Archbishop seemed to
work in harmony with the British government. By the 1830s it was
agreed that changes were necessary, and new policies were eventually
initiated by Pope Gregory XVI, who as Cardinal Cappellari had been
Prefect of Propaganda Fide. The suspension of diplomatic relations
between Rome and Lisbon in 1834 gave the Pope a freer hand. In
Madras the Capuchins were replaced by Irish secular priests with a
Vicar Apostolic at the head. It was assumed that English-speaking
missionaries would commend themselves to the British government
there, which seemed less sympathetic to Catholic missionaries than
the government of Bombay. 3 An Irish Vicar Apostolic was also
appointed to Calcutta, again in the hope that this would be agreeable
to the British authorities. In fact, the British authorities were soon
alarmed by the pronouncements of two Irish Bishops in succession
which they thought might provoke disaffection among Irish soldiers. 4
There remained the gap in Tamil Nadu that had been created by
the suppression of the Jesuits. Secular priests of the Missions
Etrangeres had moved to succeed them, but they were few. The
widely respected Abbe Dubois, after a long career as a missionary in
Mysore, had recently been appointed Director of their seminary in
Paris, and he strongly urged that the Jesuits should return to Madurai.
He asserted that Catholicism in South India had greatly degenerated
since the withdrawal of the Jesuits. This, he said, was because the
Portuguese authorities had appointed Indian priests from Goa instead
of European missionaries. If something were not done, Indian
Catholics would succumb to the Methodists, who 'pullalate',
('pullulent') as he put it, in South India. 5 From a respected member
of the Missions Etrangeres, a body traditionally hostile to the Jesuits,
such testimony carried great weight in spite of its racial implications.
Soon, in 1837, the Jesuits were back in Madurai, under a French
Superior.
Pope Gregory XVI also decided to take decisive action to settle the
problem of conflicting jurisdictions, especially when the Portuguese
authorities appointed a Bishop of Mailapur without Papal authority. 6
3
In 1838 a Papal Brief suspended the padroado dioceses of Cochin

Cranganore and Mailapur. 7 However, their priests continued their
normal functions under the direction of episcopal governors
appointed by the Portuguese authorities in place of the Bishops,
whose consecration the Pope refused to authorise. Papal orders to the
contrary were ignored on the ground that they lacked the royal
validation. On the other hand, the Vicars Apostolic extended their
authority to the areas covered by the padroado.
The Pope made various attempts to end the breach. Diplomatic
relations with Lisbon were restored in 1841, and a new Archbishop of
Goa was appointed shortly afterwards. 8 However, he proved to be an
energetic and strong-willed prelate, and stormy controversies en-
livened his period of office. Tentative negotiations for a concordat
only began after his recall in 1849. They were finally ratified by the
Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, a body which
transacted most of its business behind closed doors. The resulting
concordat was only ratified by Pope Pius IX in 1859 and by the
Portuguese government in 1860.
The suppressed dioceses were to be restored, and Portuguese
Bishops would take the place of the Vicars Apostolic as and when
resources permitted. But resources never permitted, and the concordat
lapsed. However, the negotiations that followed its signing provoked
dark suspicions. The Catholic Examiner, a journal which nourished
warm emotions, warned the new Archbishop of Goa that the
supporters of Propaganda Fide would stop at nothing. 'I hope also
no accident will happen to him on his journey out, but no trust can be
placed on [sic] the Jesuits.'9 Father Strickland, a priest who liked to
move in high places, was told by the Secretary of State that the British
authorities would be worried if the concordat increased Portuguese
influence in India. But Lord John Russell, the Prime Minister, soon
brushed aside such anxieties. A single British gunboat in Lisbon
harbour, he said, would ensure that the Portuguese government would
never harm British interests. 10
In India devout Catholics were troubled by the tricky question of
marriages conducted under the padroado regime. According to the
Vicars Apostolic they were invalid, and many couples were remarried
after the concordat had been signed and the padroado was
pronounced by Rome to be valid again. But what if the spouse of a
marriage contracted between 1838 and 1859 now wanted to marry
someone else? The situation might surely encourage immorality? Mgr
Saba, the Papal commissioner who went to India to negotiate the
4
details of the concordat, replied to enquirers that he had been granted

a general permission to validate such marriages, but to avoid
disturbing the Faithful who trusted the Vicars Apostolic he wanted
it to remain confidential. However, such things could not be kept
secret, and the Vicars Apostolic were often discomfited by the taunts
of sundry padroado priests. 11
In fact the anomalous situation continued until 1886 when a
successful concordat re-established normal relations between Rome
and Lisbon. By then British confidence in the stability of the Raj was
at its height, and there was less anxiety about Portuguese influence,
once it was realised that the Pope would still have the final voice in the
appointment of Bishops. In India, however, the concordat left
anomalies and controversies between padroado priests and their
colleagues working under Propaganda Fide. There were still places
which had churches of both jurisdictions. But by the end of the
nineteenth century the ecclesiastical map of Catholic India had been
moulded into a pattern which does not greatly differ from that of
today. There were 28 Bishops, of whom 25 were in the Madras
Presidency. 12
The existence of rival jurisdictions was first a matter for Bishops
and priests. But in the nineteenth century lay people came into the
arena. Catholics dissatisfied with their priest would decide to apply
for their jurisdiction to be changed, in the expectation that a change of
priest would follow. These applications would usually be made to the
East India Company's government, which accepted the responsibility
of authorising transfers of jurisdiction. When considering an
application for a transfer, the Company's government devised a
Protestant-style principle to the effect that a change of jurisdiction
was allowable if a majority of the people wanted it. Such proposals
therefore prompted official investigation, and the Company was
frequently involved in the affairs of the Roman Catholic church.
These disagreements were common in Bombay, Kerala and Tamil
Nadu, and usually involved caste rivalries. Then as now, most Indian
Catholics were in South India. A minority of them were Vellalas,
occupied in agriculture and claiming the status of the Sudra class
(varna) of castes. For Catholics this was prestigious, since both in
Kerala and Tamil Nadu the traditional fourfold classification had
been truncated, at least in Brahman eyes. The military Kshatriya and
the commercial Vaisya castes were thought to be virtually extinct, so
that there were now only Brahmans and Sudras, apart from outcastes
beyond the pale. As hardly any Brahmans were Catholics, apart from
5
a sizeable number in Goa, the Sudras had high status in the church as
compared with Fishers and Parias.
Among Catholics of status there were also many East Indians of
mixed birth. However, the majority of Catholics were of low caste:
among them the most assertive were Fishers - especially the Mukkuvan
caste in Kerala and the Parava caste in Tamil Nadu. For centuries some
Fishers had used their boats for trade and gained wealth. In Madras
they had also gained official favour since they provided ferries over the
surf between the Company's ships at anchor and the shore. There were
also many Catholics among the Shanars of Tamil Nadu and some of
these had similarly improved their socio-economic position in recent
years, abandoning their traditional work of toddy-tapping for trade
and assuming the more respectable name of Nadar.
Many poor Catholics of low status appear in the East India
Company's records - peasants, tailors, sail-makers, coolies and Parias.
Some of them were spirited enough to protest when priests ignored
their wishes, and their protests were often so forceful that changes
were made. This is an extraordinary thing to find a hundred and fifty
years or more before the second Vatican Council. We can only explain
it by looking at the situation during the heyday of the East India
Company, when the conflict of jurisdictions between Propaganda Fide
and the padroado was also at its height.
In the investigation that followed an application for a transfer of
jurisdiction, the local magistrate would usually be deputed to enquire
into the wishes of the people. So grievances were ventilated and the
very prospect of an official enquiry encouraged the aggrieved to make
their views known. We can find many of their petitions and memorials
in the Company's records; some even found their way into the
archives of Propaganda Fide. Many of the protesters were illiterate
and would make their names with a cross. How, then, were such
documents prepared? Not, certainly, by the local priest, who was
usually the target of criticism. Often there were some literate people
among the ringleaders. It might still seem a difficult enterprise for
them to draft documents in an English, or Portuguese, style that was
acceptable enough for the Company's officials to take note of the
matter. But we have to remember the scene in Indian bazaars and
small towns to this day: typists squatting in front of ancient
Remingtons painstakingly draft petitions for illiterate villagers who
wait more or less patiently in the open air around them. Their
ancestors, scribes with quill pens, would have been readily available
in the days of the Company.
6
Caste had never been a problem for the ancient Syrian Church of
South India, whose members insisted on deference from low castes.
For them it was a social matter, with no religious implications. But for
many European missionaries, it raised questions of principle. Duncan
Forrester has shown how leading Protestant missionaries, beginning
with Bishop Wilson in the 1830s, condemned the observance of caste
among converts. 13 Among Roman Catholic missionaries, on the other
hand, there was much disagreement on the matter. Those who
opposed the observance of caste among Christians argued that it was
essentially a Hindu institution, linked with notions of the transmigra-
tion of souls with high or low status as the reward of virtue or the
punishment of vice in previous lives. Some also argued that the caste
system offended, much more than did the social hierarchies of Europe,
against the egalitarian implications which they perceived in Chris-
tianity. On the other hand, missionaries who held that the observance
of caste was allowable among Christians argued in principle that it
was merely a social matter, and on practical grounds that high castes
would never be converted if they could not retain their caste status.
In the nineteenth century, however, the main problem for Catholic
missionaries arose from socio-economic change. At first it seemed
prudent to avoid giving offence to Christians of high caste. But in time
many missionaries came to think it wise to take account of the rising
expectations which they perceived among Christians of lower caste.
Some patterns can be seen, but they are not uniform. In Kerala,
dissatisfied low-caste congregations were apt to seek transfer from
Propaganda Fide to the padroado; on the other hand, in Bombay the
situation was reversed, and dissatisfied upper-class congregations
sought transfer to the padroado from Propaganda Fide. But in Tamil
Nadu as in Kerala the tendency was for the lower castes to prefer the
padroado. It has recently been suggested that the Jesuits exaggerated
disputes among Roman Catholics of the Parava Fisher caste in order
to enhance their own authority. 14 In fact, when the Jesuits returned to
the Madurai mission their intention was to respect the caste hierarchy
in accordance with their traditions, but they were confronted with
caste conflicts which already existed and which they misinterpreted,
with the result that their tactics exacerbated conflicts although their
aim was to preserve the stability of the existing social order.
Caste was a long-standing problem for the Jesuits in the Madurai
mission. Roberto Nobili, who settled there in 1606, lived like a
Brahman, observed caste strictly, and converted some Brahmans. This
aroused controversy, but his contention that the observance of caste
7
had no religious implications was eventually accepted and his

methods were ratified by Pope Gregory XV in 1623. Towards the
end of the century, when the Jesuits were criticised for compromising
with Chinese rites, Nobili's methods again came under review. Charles
Maillard de Toumon, who was sent to China and India as Apostolic
Delegate to settle these matters, ruled that there should be no
compromise, and in 1739 Pope Clement XII required missionaries in
the area to swear an oath to this effect. Finally, in 1744 Pope Benedict
XIV ruled (in Omnium Sollicitudum) that all Catholics whatever their
birth should hear Mass and receive communion in the same church at
the same time. IS However, the memory of Roberto Nobili was
treasured in the Madurai mission, and every effort was made to
observe social punctilio in accordance with Hindu values. The Jesuits
provided separate entrances for low castes and little walls to separate
them from high castes in their churches, and separate burial grounds.
They claimed in these ways they were faithful to Benedict XIV's
precepts, but their opponents thought this was Jesuitical in the
pejorative sense of the term.
After the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773 their successors of the
Missions Etrangeres asked whether such practices accorded with
Papal policy. Propaganda Fide conceded in 1778 that separate places
and entrances in churches, and separate cemeteries could be tolerated
for the time being. 16 Soon the question was pressed again by some
liberal-minded missionaries with experience of Thailand, who
revealed that when a church in Pondichery had suffered war damage
it had been rebuilt with a higher wall separating low from high castes.
After much discussion Propaganda Fide condemned the erection of
higher walls, but conceded that the separation of castes in church
could be tolerated for the time being to avoid greater evils, provided
that efforts were made to encourage Indian Catholics to abandon
caste prejudice. At the same time, Propaganda Fide sent a longer
criticism of the danger of caste to Bishop Pierre Brigot of Pondichery
who had been appointed Superior of the former Jesuits in Tamil
Nadu. 17
But the policy clearly laid down by Propaganda Fide was soon
forgotten or ignored. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there
were demands in Kerala for the entry of Mukkavan or Fisher caste
boys into the local seminary and for their eventual ordination as
priests. There was much high-caste opposition, but Propaganda Fide
was reminded that 5t Peter, the first Pope, had himself been a
fisherman, and ruled in 1832 that five or six Fisher boys should be
8
trained for ordination. 18 Again its ruling was ignored by the local
Bishop.
The problem did not go away. Father Joseph Bertrand, the Jesuit
Superior at Madurai, was closely questioned by the Father-General in
1841. Had all the Madurai Jesuits sworn the oath prescribed by Pope
Clement XII in 1739? Bertrand replied that they had all sworn that
'terrible oath' ('serment terrible'). He also admitted that some Jesuits
were worried about the question of caste among Catholics: in
technical language they had 'scruples'. But if Benedict's ruling meant
that all castes should be fused together, Bertrand thought that the
Jesuits might as well abandon all their efforts at missionary work in
India. On the other hand, perhaps they could agree that their own
policy could be reconciled with Benedict's ruling. Low castes might be
separated from high castes by little walls, but at least they heard Mass
and received Communion in the same church at the same time. It was
unfortunate that in some churches Parias had to stand at the door, but
the Bishop of Pondichery advised him that this could be allowed. He
had told his colleagues to forget their scruples and avoid innova-
tions. 19 This convinced the Father-General. There should be no
innovations. How many times had he received this reply from the
Holy Office to knotty questions propounded by Jesuits in different
parts of the world! And surely one could trust the seasoned advice of
the Bishop of Pondichery!20
Caste aroused controversy again in 1844, and again the liberal
views of the Papacy were opposed by local Bishops. At a synod at
Pondichery French missionaries of the Missionary Etrangeres agreed
on a policy of extending education and facilities for the training of
Indian priests. All Indians of caste would be eligible: this meant
virtually the minority of high castes, mainly Sudras. There were some
Catholic Brahmans, mainly in Goa, but virtually all other Catholics
were Eurasians, Sudras and low castes. Although technically Sudras
belonged to the fourth class (varna) the missionaries thought of them
as high caste. Later in the nineteenth century, when Sudra students
objected to the presence of Fishers in the Cochin seminary, the
Apostolic Delegate welcomed the notion of sending the Sudras to
study in Goa on the ground that the presence of Brahman students
there would shame them into being less proud. 21
When the French missionaries spoke of Sudras in their synod in
1844, they meant Vellalas, who were in most country areas the
dominant Sudra minority. The missionaries thought it was quite
proper that low castes would be excluded from any seminary, and
9
from schools for that matter. However, when the young Abbe Luquet
brought the proceedings to Rome, he enclosed his own critique of such
policies. He criticised the deference paid to caste by French Jesuits, and
praised the contrary views of the Irish priests under the Irish Bishops
O'Connor and Carew of Madras. The Jesuits feared that high castes
would never send their children to a school where they would be in
contact with low-caste children. But the schools established by the Irish
missionaries were open to all castes, and Luquet said he had seen
Brahman children going to them without any problems. 22 Luquet's
views were given serious attention by Propaganda Fide, and the Bishop
of Pondichery was duly told that there should be no exclusions on
grounds of birth. He sent copies of this instruction from Propaganda
Fide to his missionaries but added that there should be no
innovations?3 And when the Jesuits established a college at Negapatam
in 1845 they resolved to admit only boys of high caste. 24
Luquet also praised the Irish missionaries for ignoring caste
generally. In their churches anyone could sit anywhere, and Parias
could even sing in the choir. But in other churches one often saw empty
places in the area reserved for high castes, while Parias were crowded
together, or even had to stand in the sun outside. In protestant churches
also there was no separation of places. Again, French missionaries
abstained from eating beef so as not to offend high castes. But the Irish
missionaries had no such inhibitions, and in Kerala there were Goanese
priests who asked their parishioners to eat beef.25 At Madurai Father
Bertrand attempted a reply to the Abbe Luquet to the effect that
deference to high castes was essential in view of their influence over
Indian society as a whole. But he also conceded that the Jesuit
missionaries now had instructions not to bless a new church if it did not
have 'a decent place' ('une place decente') for the Parias?6
However, the social conservatism of the French Jesuits, not to
speak of the French Bishop of Pondichery, was remarkable. They were
still driven to obstruct the policies of Propaganda Fide in these
matters. In fact their social perspective concealed another dimension.
Father Bertrand deplored the behaviour of the Irish Bishop of Madras
and his priests. They wore ordinary civil clothes, just as if they were
Protestants. This used to be a matter of prudence in Britain. There
were memories of the Gordon riots: one did not want to provoke the
Protestants unnecessarily. Even in the 1850s there were protests when
Father Faber and his Ultramontane colleagues brought the soutane
and the shovel hat to the Brompton Oratory. But in France there were
memories of the Revolution, which to devout Catholics seemed to be
10
synonymous with hostility to religion. One must at all costs avoid

such contagion in India. And the tight trousers and cutaway coats
which were now the fashion might reveal immodest outlines of the
male anatomy. All other Catholic priests in India wore the soutane,
which accorded with Indian notions. Soon after he arrived in India
Father Bertrand was shocked to see an Irish priest in trousers on
horseback. The traditional Jesuit church in India, with its separation
of places for high and low castes had a symbolic value in Jesuit eyes.
At the altar the priest repeated Christ's sacrifice assisted by Vellala
servers. There was an ordered social hierarchy very different from the
disorder of revolutionary France. And the Jesuits were attracted by
the stereotype of the ideal Brahman - austere and devoted to religious
meditation. After all, they themselves had similar ideals, unlike
secular priests. On one occasion the Father-General congratulated a
former Vicar Apostolic for having avoided episcopal pomp.27
The problem of caste among Catholics was raised again in 1869
when the convening of the first Vatican Council gave the opportunity
for the Vicars Apostolic of India to meet together. They thought there
were two alternatives. On the one hand, caste could be recognised, as
in Tamil Nadu, where Catholics retained their original caste. On the
other hand, if it were opposed, or merely ignored, as in Bengal,
Catholics would leave their old caste on conversion and join a
separate caste of Catholics. If numbers could be trusted, the former
case promised greater success. The Vicars Apostolic concluded that
the time was not ripe for any opposition to caste. 28 But soon after
their attitudes began to change, even in Tamil Nadu. This change can
be seen as early as the 1880s. When low castes clashed with priests the
Jesuit reaction came to be that the priest should be transferred.
Goanese priests, always more sympathetic towards low castes, came
to be more forceful in their sympathies. And Goanese priests in
particular came to be less patient with the claims of the caste headman
of the Para vas. Finally, the Vatican inaugurated a new seminary for
Indian priests in which caste was disregarded as a matter of policy.
The recruitment of Indian priests was a policy which Propaganda
Fide urged on its Vicars Apostolic from 1630 onwards. 29 But they
often proved reluctant to implement it, although the Archbishops of
Goa trained and ordained a steady stream of Eurasian and Indian
priests for their dioceses. Apart from a natural if unconscious desire to
protected vested interests, several other reasons can be assigned for
the reluctance of various Vicars Apostolic to ordain and promote
Indian priests. Propaganda Fide had to rely on the religious orders for
11
most of its recruits to the mission field. As in other parts of the world,
the religious orders tended to regard themselves as more protected
from material temptations than secular priests, who held money and
were not subject to the disciplines of the religious life. Moreover, in
nineteenth-century India there was an analagous tendency, encour-
aged by British notions, for Europeans generally to regard Indians as
more liable to the sins of the flesh than they themselves. In this
atmosphere the Vicars Apostolic and their missionaries tended to treat
the ordination of Indians as a matter for the greatest caution. Another
reason often assigned for such caution was the persistence of caste
among Christians. If an Indian of one caste were ordained, so the
argument ran, this might be resented by other castes, while he himself
might favour, or be thought to favour, parishioners of his own caste.
How to deal with caste was an important consideration in the
arrangements for a new general seminary for the training of Indian
priests. This project began with a bequest from an Englishman who
left £32,000 to the Holy See for a seminar in the East Indies. 3o Pope
Leo XIII sent Bishop Ladislao Zaleski to India in 1890 with a
confidential mission to draw up plans for a new seminary. The
conservative Father Barbier disapproved of the whole idea of a
general seminary. But the Pope's instructions were definite. 31 The
antagonism that had endured for so long between the Jesuits of Tamil
Nadu and Goanese priests was a decisive reason against entrusting
them with the charge of this important new institution. But Father
Barbier was told that the Pope was determined that it should be under
Jesuit management in spite of the opposition of the Missions
Etrangeres, who wanted it for themselves.
It was therefore decided to entrust it to the Belgian Jesuits, who
were already coping successfully with the demands of higher
education in Ca1cutta.32 Caste had been no problem for them, nor
were they encumbered with the hostilities of the era of the padroado.
One reason for placing the seminary in Kandy rather than Bangalore
was that it would be out of reach of the Missions Etrangeres with
their customary hostility to the Jesuits. Another was that students
could more easily be persuaded to abandon caste prejudices when
they were at a distance from home influences. It was accepted that the
usual Jesuit discipline would be imposed, and that students would not
be allowed to return to their families in vacations except for the
gravest reasons. 33 Once established in Kandy the seminary encoun-
tered some hostility from the Oblates and Silvestrines who were
already installed there, but this did not last. 34
12
Chapter II
The East India Company
The East India Company itself was anomalous - a commercial

organisation which had become a state. During the process its ablest
officials acquired great power and wealth, coupled with a reputation
for shady practice and the fear that they would take over the
political establishment in Britain. Various restrictions were therefore
laid upon the Company with the aim of producing, in the language
of the time, a government of laws instead of men. The doings of its
governments were conducted on very formal lines. The Governor-
General of Bengal, later called the Governor-General of India, and
the Governors of Madras and Bombay each had their councils of
senior officials whose discussions were written down in duplicate,
one copy being sent to London. To conduce to an atmosphere of
respectable solemnity these personages were alternatively styled
Presidents-in-Council, and the regions they administered were called
Presidencies. All the Company's officials were schooled in the
writing of reports, and critics of the system would compare it
adversely with the Indian ideal of the great man listening to
grievances as he went about the countryside, rectifying wrongs on
the spot.
The Company's system was a hybrid, and it had unexpected
consequences for Indian Catholics. The Company knew itself to be
foreign, and its officials were particularly wary of religious grievances
as likely to lead to breaches of the peace and revolts. Such grievances
had to be investigated quickly. Rival claims were encouraged by the
existence of double jurisdiction, and there were many complaints
against Bishops and priests which culminated in demands for a change
of allegiance to or from the padroado. As they usually involved class
or caste antagonism the Company's records contains many lively
transcriptions of the protests of poor low-caste Catholics - pursued in
13
spite of their local priests' opposition - submitted for the local

magistrates' arbitration (see Chapter I).
From the Company's viewpoint, Catholics were not a great
problem. The Company's officials were much more worried by
Protestant missionaries, who had been excited by the evangelical
revival to go out and convert the heathen in foreign parts. So there
was much official talk of the Company's duty to be neutral in religious
matters. A mutiny which broke out at Vellore, in South India, in 1806
was readily ascribed to the influence of missionary propaganda in
unsettling people's minds. Missionaries who wanted to go to India
had to apply for a licence, which was rarely given until political
pressure in England forced the Company to be more lenient. When the
Company's charter was renewed in 1813 after detailed Parliamentary
enquiry and energetic Evangelical lobbying, it was provided that
missionaries refused a licence by the Company's Court of Directors
could appeal to the Board of Control, a government body which had
been appointed twenty years before to supervise the affairs of the
Company.
These anxieties revolved around Protestant missionaries. Roman
Catholics were regarded differently. For one thing, Portuguese and
Goanese priests were already in India when the Company arrived, and
they seemed to be part of the Indian scene. Their early evangelistic
fervour soon declined, and by the seventeenth century Portugal itself
found it difficult to replace missionaries, let alone increase the supply.
Although Rome began to send out missionaries through Propaganda
Fide, these came from a variety of countries and did not seem
politically threatening. There were so few of them that they could do
little more than minister to the needs of the increasing population of
Indian Catholics. When the Company reluctantly had to admit
Protestant missionaries into India in greater numbers, its officials
noted that if Catholic missionaries ever tried to proselytise they
directed their attentions to Protestants rather than Hindus or
Muslims. This was because of the notion that Protestants were
heretics who would be damned eternally, whereas pagans who died in
good faith would merely be despatched to Limbo, which was
agreeable enough, though not as delightful as Heaven. The fact
remained that there seemed to be no political harm in Catholic
missionaries. Another reason why the Company approved of them
was that they could be used as part-time chaplains to Catholic
soldiers, since it was thought that some 40 per cent of the British
troops in India were Irish Catholics.
14
THE EAST INDIA COMPANY
There were other reasons for welcoming Catholic mIssIOnaries.

When the Company established itself in Madras and Bombay,
Portuguese influence was dominant among the local merchants and
clerks. It seemed politically expedient to have alternative sources of
influence in a French Capuchin mission in Madras and an Italian
Carmelite mission in Bombay. However, by the 1780s it was found
expedient to encourage Portuguese influence in the light of criticism
that the ministry in London was neglecting England's historic ties with
Portugal in the interests of a new commercial understanding with
France. Various measures were duly taken to strengthen the position
of the Archbishop of Goa in Bombay and the Bishop of Mailapur in
Madras.
Supporting the authority of the Portuguese Bishop of Mailapur
remained the policy of the Madras government for another three
decades. The Bombay government, on the other hand, was closer to
Goa and soon felt threatened by Goanese influence which was
thought to be spread by the Archbishop and his priests. The
government suspected the presence of 'a constant communication
with and looking to Goa'. Goanese Catholics were said to be proud of
their Portuguese culture. They were like a 'separate caste'. They
thought of their rulers as 'merely English heretics'. The Governor-in-
Council thought uneasily that even 'the European Portuguese' had this
superior attitudes. 1 Such ideas continued to trouble the Bombay
government. Most of the priests in the Bombay Presidency were
Goanese or had been trained in Goa.
The government concluded that the Carmelite Bishop should be
helped to train priests in Bombay and after a long struggle persuaded
the Court of Directors to pay for a seminary. The government
thereupon asked the Court of Directors to sanction 300 rupees a
month for a seminary and 40 rupees a month for each Catholic priest,
and some priests were paid stipends? In the despatch authorising the
payment of priests and seminarians, which was drafted by the eminent
economist James Mill, there followed the sardonic comment: 'they
have, at least, as strong a claim upon our bounty as the Hindoo and
Mahomedan priesthood'. 3
The most significant development in the Company's policy towards
Catholic missionaries was to provide financial help for Bishop Luigi in
Kerala and Bishop Alcantara in Bombay, both of whom operated
under Propaganda Fide, independently of the Archbishop of Goa.
When the subsidy from Rome to the Malabar mission in Kerala was
interrupted in 1791, Bishop Luigi and his colleagues asked the
15
Bombay government for a loan. Their request was specific and

detailed, amounting to 1,220 rupees for the missionaries' subsistence,
for the upkeep of their seminary for training priests, and for church
expenses, and they mentioned delicately that on a previous occasion
the Dutch governor of Cochin had made them a loan. 4 The Bombay
government advanced the money for a year, noting that all British
subjects in the area respected the 'high character' of Bishop Luigi. 5
Father Paulino, the Vicar-General, was also respected for his
proficiency in Sanskrit as well as Malayalam, and he had carried
Papal greetings to the Maharaja of Travancore. 6 The Court of
Directors promptly agreed that the advance could be continued every
year until further notice. 7
In fact the Company paid the same amount annually to the
Carmelite missionaries for seventeen years. Finally, in 1818 it asked
for a refund. Propaganda Fide was told that the Court of Directors
had not asked before this in view of 'the peculiar circumstances of the
continent of Europe'. 8 But the Cardinal Prefect replied that during
these troubled years little information had reached Rome from the
missions, and also that 'after a minute search among the archives still
remaining at Rome' no trace had been found of any authority from
Propaganda Fide for the Company to make these payments to
missionaries. 9 This was not untrue: Propaganda Fide had never asked
the Company to advance money to its missionaries. However, the
Cardinal Prefect refrained from revealing that after the departure of
Father Paulino to Rome and after the death of the respected Bishop
Luigi, disturbing news had been arriving about the state of the
mission. One Bishop had to be recalled for drunken and eccentric
behaviour. The next head of the mission was recalled on suspicion of
sexual immorality.1o So the Company's generosity to the Carmelite
mission was unwelcome news in Rome. However, the Company's
bureaucracy preserved virtually all the documents it received from
India, and a copy of Bishop Luigi's initial request was quickly sent to
the Cardinal Prefect. He then replied that after six years of the French
occupation of Rome, Propaganda Fide's treasury was exhausted. He
sent £200, in the hope that the Company would accept repayment in
annual instalments, and he asked that no advances should be made
again without Propaganda's express authorisation. l l The Court
agreed to repayment by instalments, and waived all claim to interest,
although the Company's Committee of Accounts noted that the rate
of exchange in which these transactions had been calculated was
unfavourable to the Company.12
16
The Company also provided financial support for the Roman

Catholic mission in Bombay. Like Bishop Luigi, Bishop Alcantara
applied for help on the ground that his subsidy from Rome,
amounting to 400 rupees a year, had been interrupted. The
government gave him an immediate donation of 1,000 rupees and
proposed a regular monthly payment of 200 rupees.13 The Court of
Directors approved of the general policy of making a regular payment
to the Roman Catholic Bishop, on the ground that he should be 'as
dependent upon the British authority as circumstances will admit, and
as independent as possible of foreign jurisdiction'. But the Court
insisted on cost effectiveness, and questioned 'the propriety of
obtaining that object at a rate higher than that which was asked'. A
grant of 400 rupees a year for life was sanctioned in view of the
Bishop's 'advanced age,.14 However, contrary to the Company's
expectations, Bishop Alcantara continued in office until he died in
1840 at the age of 80.
Elsewhere there was no question of paying for priests or seminaries
as a general policy. But there were exceptions. Father Francesco
Saverio was a devout and energetic Italian. The Madras government
was greatly impressed by the austere life of this Carmelite missionary,
who quietly established himself in a remote area in 1801, and in 1812
resolved to pay him a monthly stipend of 35 rupees. In 1821, the
Collector supported his request for an increase on grounds of ill
health, describing him as having 'one of the most meritorious and
unblemished characters'. The Collector added that his information
about local conditions was always helpful. So his allowance was duly
increased to 50 rupees a month, and the government also paid 1,000
rupees for repairing his church and providing it with a new roof. 15
The Abbe Dubois was another highly respected Roman Catholic
priest. The Madras government appointed him Superintendent of
Vaccination in Mysore, where he was working as a missionary. He
later claimed that during a period of nine years he had been
responsible for over 96,000 vaccinations. His book on Hindu customs
was much appreciated in official circles, and when he decided to retire
on grounds of ill health, the Court of Directors paid 1,500 rupees for
his passage back to Europe. The Court also agreed to his request that
his salary as Superintendent of Vaccination would be continued to
him as a pension. 16 Before he left he asked if the Company would pay
for the upkeep of the three chapels he had built in Mysore for the
6,000 or so Catholics there, who were all too poor to pay for building
repairs. The British Resident warmly supported this application from
17
'that very respectable man Mr Dubois'. Dubois suggested 300 rupees

a year, and the government agreed. So did the Court of Directors, with
the rider that 'on general principles' such grants were objectionable. 17
The common factor in the cases of Saverio and Dubois was that their
local information had been useful to the authorities.
As a general policy throughout British India Roman Catholic
missionaries were paid stipends for officiating as chaplains to
regiments with Roman Catholic soldiers. Since it was generally
assumed that 40 per cent of British soldiers in both King's and
Company's troops were Irish Roman Catholics there might have been
complaints if chaplains were not available. When Bishop Alcantara of
Bombay went to Madras in 1819 to inspect missionary affairs there,
some 250 soldiers sent a petition through him to the Pope, asking for
an Irish or English priest. A deputation claiming to represent 850
soldiers also presented a memorial. The document combines pathos
and social protest. On the one hand the soldiers claimed: 'we are
driven out by necessity in this distant part of the world, far from our
Blessed country as well from our Dearest Relations and Parents, living
in a continual hardship and incessant labour both of Mind and Body
and stript of all those Blessings which only render the life of a man
supportable in this vale of Fear' (the misquotation lends authenticity
to the document). On the other hand: 'Will the preachers of Christian
virtues only preach to the rich and well-provided inhabitants and
refuse to follow and comfort the Distressed in their Distress?,18 There
were many such memorials and petitions from soldiers, and they
usually included a request for English-speaking priests. Hardly any
Catholic missionaries were English, so Irish missionaries were
particularly welcomed by the military authorities, provided they had
not been educated at Maynooth, which was associated with Irish
nationalism. 19
The renewal of the Company's charter in 1833 prompted demands
for a more generous provision for Roman Catholic interests. In a
formal letter the Secretary at War asked for more Roman Catholic
chaplains. The Court of Directors stated that no application for a
chaplain had been refused. 20 In the House of Commons O'Connell
criticised the provision of Anglican Bishops at Bombay and Madras:
India had at most 20,000 Protestants as compared with half a million
Roman Catholics. He also asked for more Catholic chaplains. Charles
Grant, President of the Board of Control, made a diplomatic reply: 'he
knew there was a very large Roman Catholic community in India, and
they deserved the particular regard and consideration of the
18
Government'. To the disappointment of some Catholics in India

O'Connell let the matter drop, accepting Grant's statement as 'most
satisfactory,.21
After these discussions the authorities in India thought it prudent to
be as systematic as possible. In 1835 the Governor-General in Council
pronounced that Roman Catholic priests who acted as military
chaplains could be paid 50 rupees a month. At Dum Dum, the chief
military station in Bengal, the Catholic chaplain was paid 200
rupees. 22 The Madras government promptly raised its payment to the
Catholic chaplain at Fort St George from 35 to 150 rupees. 23
Elsewhere, 50 rupees became the usual payment for Irish Catholic
missionaries who acted as military chaplains. Goanese priests acting
as chaplains were paid less.
Ten years later, in 1845, laborious calculations in the secretariat
revealed that the average salary of a Catholic chaplain in British India
was 53 rupees a month. The Court of Directors promptly authorised
increases to 250 rupees at Dum Dum and between 80 and 100 rupees
elsewhere. This was justified with the argument that the old salaries
were not attracting sahibs: it was 'desirable for many reasons that
ignorant individuals and low persons of Portuguese extraction should
no longer fill situations in which they can be of little service to
Europeans, and that the office should be performed by British subjects
rather than by Foreigners,.24 The notion that 'low persons of
Portuguese extraction' were not as European as the Company's Irish
soldiers may seem curious at first sight, but the implication was that
Roman Catholic priests with Portuguese names were of mixed or
Indian birth. On the other hand, French missionaries were excluded
from the higher payments on the ground that they were foreigners,
and might behave in inconvenient ways.
Susan Bayly has emphasised the Hindu character of Roman
Catholicism in India. 25 And there is nothing remarkable about this.
From the earliest times the Catholic church in Europe appropriated
pagan ceremonies and festivals. However, there was so much
difference between Catholicism and Protestantism in nineteenth-
century India that we find some of the Company's officials speaking as
if Catholicism and Hinduism were synonymous. When the Magistrate
of South Arcot spoke of 'Romish' priests 'doing poojah', some devout
Catholics thought this was an example of Protestant spleen, and there
were complaints to the government. Lord Elphinstone, the Governor
of Madras, said that officials should not use language which might
upset Roman Catholics. 26 The Magistrate was duly informed of the
19
'impropriety' of such terms. 27 On another occasion it transpired that

the Collector of Poona seemed to think of Roman Catholics as more
like Hindus or Muslims than Protestant Christians. When Padre
Pereira, the incumbent of the Roman Catholic chapel in Poona, was
absent and the Collector wanted authority to pay the priest's monthly
salary to the locum, he revealed that the amount was charged not to
the Ecclesiastical Department but under the head 'Charitable Grants
to Temples, Mosques, etc,.28 The government referred this tricky
point to the Civil Auditor, who replied that Padre Pereira's salary was
indeed borne on the annual statement of charitable grants as an
'allowance for the Portuguese church of Poona'.29
Perhaps these ambiguities can be explained in part by the tendency
of government officials to distance themselves from the people subject
to them, who become the 'Others'. 30 Another part of the explanation
is the deliberately secular nature of the Company.
Almost to the end the Company continued to pay Roman Catholic
missionaries in various ways. However, two factors affected this
policy in the 1850s. First, Protestant feelings in England were roused
by Cardinal Wiseman's tactless manner of announcing the restoration
of the Roman Catholic hierarchy there in 1850. The Court of
Directors, with the approval of the Board Qf Control, proceeded to
emphasise that when public funds were spent on Roman Catholic
missionaries in India it must be solely on account of their work on
behalf of the government. On the other hand, the discussions that
preceded the renewal of the Company's charter in 1853 prompted
increases in the funds that were so spent.
It had long seemed anomalous that the Company paid some
Roman Catholic Bishops and not others, and there were many pleas
for more generosity.31 Finally, in 1852 the Court of Directors
authorised the payment of 200 rupees a month to each bishop who
made 'Sacred Returns' - statistics of Roman Catholic births,
marriages and deaths in British India. These returns were made by
four bishops out of sixteen. 32 However, Roman Catholic pressure
increased. In June 1853 Fathers Ignatius Persico and William
Strickland arrived at the East India House, the Company's head-
quarters in London. Describing themselves as 'Commissaries of the
Vicars Apostolic of India', they presented various requests. Among
other things they asked for higher stipends for Roman Catholic priests
serving as military chaplains. They also presented fairly reliable
statistics. To serve over 600,000 Indian Roman Catholics and about
16,000 Roman Catholic soldiers there were 16 Bishops and 303
20
priests, of whom 200 were European. Only 78 priests were paid for
chaplaincy duties, as compared with 121 Anglican clergymen, who
were each paid ten times as much. But paying the equivalent of a
sergeant's pay to 'an educated gentleman' was a 'humiliation' to the
priest and a 'real degradation of his religion in the eyes of the
Natives,.33 Father Strickland was a highly connected English Jesuit,
and he seems not to have understood that Hindus esteemed an ascetic
rather than a gentlemanly lifestyle as an indication of sanctity. Then
Frederick Lucas, a leading Catholic layman, asked in the House of
Commons whether Sir Charles Wood, the President of the Board of
Control, thought that the assurances held out in 1833 had been
fulfilled. Wood replied that he accepted the principle that the
Company should provide for the spiritual needs of its Roman
Catholic servants, and he admitted that this provision was as yet
'far from adequate'. 34
The Court of Directors therefore agreed in principle to increase the
salaries of the four bishops involved in official correspondence and of
the priests who served as chaplains. Of course they could not be paid
as much as Anglican clergymen. First, they were not government
officials. Second, they were unencumbered with family expenses. The
four bishops would be paid 400 a month each, and chaplains between
150 and 100 rupees a month. This meant that most of them gained. 35
But the payments were all for services to the Company's officials and
soldiers. So the Court asked why official funds should still support a
Roman Catholic seminary in Bombay and priests in the Konkan.
Anxious discussions ensued. The costs were not great after all. The
Bombay government admitted that as the seminary only cost 150
rupees a month the education it provided was probably inadequate.
And perhaps its existence deterred the ecclesiastical authorities from
supplying better-educated priests from Europe. However, the Govern-
ment of India concluded that closing the seminary would probably
not elicit better-educated priests from Europe. Even if it did, they
might not be 'as well fitted for the duty' as the present incumbents.
These 'Native Portuguese priests', as they were now called in official
circles, were surely appropriate for native Catholics. It was best to
leave things undisturbed. 36
These priests in the Konkan did not serve as military chaplains, but
they were only paid between 10 and 100 rupees a month. The
Collector's advice was sought. He drew a spirited comparison
'between the enormous expenses borne on the revenues of the State
for the endowment of Hindoo and Mussulman places of worship and
21
the small stipends it is contemplated to withdraw from the ill-paid

Christian priests'. As it was, 'hundreds of the Cultivating Class of
native Christians have apostatized to Heathenism'. The government
agreed that it would be inexpedient to stop paying the priests'
stipends. 37 However, the Court of Directors ordered in August 1858
that the stipends should end on the death of the existing
incumbents. 38 Three weeks later the Company's rule ended.
But there remained the question of the padroado. Long before, in
1838, Auckland and Elphinstone had conferred privately about this.
The East India Company had found problems when magistrates
became involved in determining ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In general,
they were agreed that the government should stand back and tell the
contending parties to seek redress in the law courts. Auckland had
looked into the question when the Vicar Apostolic arrived in Calcutta.
But the details were too boring for him: 'Still, however, there was, I
think, something of awkwardness in the question which I cannot call
back to my mind .. .'39 What was awkward was that when the
incumbency of a padroado church was disputed, neither a government
order nor a judicial decision had much effect if it conflicted with the
views of the archbishop of Goa. Then the Portuguese government
applied pressure through diplomatic channels to persuade the
Company into supporting the authority of the archbishop of Goa.
At the same time, Elphinstone tried to explain to the Board of Control
the advantages of annexing the Portuguese territories in India. At the
Board, John Cam Hobhouse agreed that this would avoid further
ecclesiastical disputes, 'but there is no dealing with the Portuguese'. 40
And local controversies continued. Finally the Court of Directors
ruled that disputes about jurisdiction should be settled in the law
courtS. 41 Once again the Company's unique status had made it
possible for its administrators to show a preference for a peaceful
solution of problems with dangerous political overtones.
22
Chapter III
Carmelites, Caste, Sex and Conflict in

Kerala
There was much conflict among Catholics in nineteenth-century

Kerala. Various explanations are possible. There was the speed of
socio-economic change in India generally. This produced particular
strains in Kerala's highly stratified society. There were also
difficulties among the Carmelites themselves. The troubles of the
last decade of the eighteenth century sapped Carmelite vitality.
When the Carmelite historian Ambrosius a S. Theresia tackled the
period he saw himself as writing some of the saddest pages of the
history of the mission. 1 Few recruits could be found in Italy, while
difficulties confronted missionaries from other countries. A Bavarian
Vicar Apostolic had to resign because he and the Superior, also a
Bavarian, received such little co-operation from the Italian members
of the mission. 2 There were also problems among such Italians as
could be found. Bishop Luigi had to appoint Father Raimondo as his
Vicar-General although he admitted to Propaganda Fide in 1796 that
he could not see in him any of the qualities needed for such a post. 3
Another problem was lack of finance as a result of the turmoil in
Italy. In 1799 Bishop Luigi had to ask for money from the East India
Company (see Chapter 11).4 There was also the size and complexity
of the area. It included territories under three rulers - the Rajas of
Travancore and Cochin and also the East India Company. At this
time there were only three missionaries for some 43,000 Catholics of
the Latin rite and 50,000 of the Syrian rite. (However, there were
also many Indian priests.)
In addition, the various strains undergone by the Malabar
missionaries could no longer be alleviated by the customary flow of
advice and encouragement from Rome. When a new missionary,
Father Prospero, arrived in 1803, he was shocked to see the tension
that prevailed between Mgr Raimondo, who had recently succeeded
23
Bishop Luigi as Vicar Apostolic on the latter's death, and the only
other missionary, Father Valentino. They seemed to be in disagree-
ment over everything - ideas, policies and conduct. He took over the
administration of the house and announced stringent economies and
strict accounting. This soon involved him in difficulties with his
colleagues. He noted with grim satisfaction that Father Valentino
wrote him at least thirty letters of protest. The Vicar Apostolic had
been drinking four bottles of wine a day. Father Pro spero reduced his
supply. Then he noticed the Bishop seemed to be developing strange
habits. One night he went out alone and fell into the river, where he
was rescued next morning by a fisherman. Father Prospero
commented piously that it seemed miraculous that the Bishop had
not been eaten by a crocodile. 5
One night Pro spero saw Valentino leaving the clergy house by
climbing through a window. Valentino tried to explain it away, but
the incident was disturbing. When they argued about money matters
Valentino would threaten to desert the mission. In December 1805
Prospero found Valentino really had left for Europe without even
saying farewell. Now he was left alone with the eccentric Bishop
Raimondo. He began to worry that such scandals would drive people
into the jurisdiction of the padroado diocese of Kranganur. Colonel
Colin Macaulay, the British Resident in Travancore, was sympathetic
and helpful. He gave money to the mission and assisted with church
repairs. But his successor, the evangelical Colonel John Munro, was
much less helpful. Some nights Prospero was so worried that he could
not sleep. He was relieved to be joined by a new missionary in 1817,
Father Nicola di Gesu Maria, but they were soon quarrelling with
each other. And Bishop Raimondo seemed to be going from bad to
worse, according to Prospero. When he said Mass he behaved
theatrically. Outside church he would wave to pretty women; he
would even invite women to his room.
The situation changed in 1814. Napoleon's power collapsed, the
Pope came back to Rome, and Propaganda Fide began to ask for news
of its missions. In a roundabout way some specific questions were
asked about Kerala. 6 Prospero hurriedly went to Bombay and
complained to Bishop Alcantara about Bishop Raimondo's doings.
Alcantara was in theory Vicar Apostolic to the Mughal Empire. In
fact his headquarters were in Bombay city, and he was popularly
referred to as the Bishop of Bombay. Prospero's complaints were duly
referred to Rome. Pro spero also wrote a long and rambling letter to
his Father-General with much detail about his difficulties. 7
24
CARMELITES, CASTE, SEX AND CONFLICT IN KERALA
Propaganda Fide quickly sent a curt rebuke to Bishop Raimondo, and

asked for a report from Alcantara. 8
Alcantara went to Kerala and produced a disturbing report. Bishop
Raimondo ought to have a coadjutor Bishop at his side. Pro spero
seemed the obvious choice in view of his local knowledge. But he had
a harsh disposition and was not even on speaking terms with his
colleague, Father Nicola. 9 Propaganda Fide decided to recall
Raimondo and put in his place Father Francesco Saverio, a spirited
member of the Mughal mission under Bishop Alcantara. For over a
decade he had criticised Alcantara about the latter's administration of
the finances of the mission. Perhaps understandably, Alcantara had
assigned him to the remote Carmelite hospice of Sankeri: this he
keenly resented. When the Papal Brief of appointment arrived in 1816
he returned it: such a post required experience, he explained, but he
had spent years in a remote hospice. io So serious quarrels were not
confined to the Carmelites in Kerala. What was difficult in Kerala was
that there seemed to be no way of reconciling or containing them. And
in Kerala caste conflict was soon added to the Carmelite agenda.
The result was that Father Prospero was left in charge of the
mission. But soon he had married an Indian woman, and was openly
living with her near the clergy house. Apparently he had also taken
2,500 rupees from the mission funds. Wearily Bishop Alcantara set off
again for Kerala to investigate. It was all true. But Pro spero applied to
be reconciled to the church. Father Saverio could hardly restrain his
indignation when he reported these goings-on to Rome. It seemed
particularly scandalous that when Father Prospero finally left Kerala
for Goa he wept only when he said farewell to his lady.ll Saverio was
even more irritated when he learned that the Archbishop of Goa had
soon absolved Prospero. He even complained to the Archbishop that
only the Carmelite Father-General should have dealt with the case.
The Archbishop replied courteously that in fact he had adequate
authority in the East Indies. The truth was that the Archbishop had
been even more helpful. He found quarters for Prospero in a
Carmelite hospice and made him an allowance. Finally, he arranged
and paid for his passage to Brazil. 12
Now Father Nicola at last had charge of the mission. Soon enough,
however, Propaganda Fide found a new Bishop - Father Miles
Prendergast, an Irish Carmelite. He came with warm testimonials
from Portugal, where he had studied at Lisbon with high academic
honours, and from Ireland, where he had been Carmelite Provincial.
Cardinal Stefano Borgia, whom he knew in Rome, was so impressed
25
that he promised him the next Bishopric in Ireland.13 On his way to

India Prendergast went first to Brazil, where he renewed old
friendships in court circles from his Lisbon days. Then he stayed a
few days in Goa, where he met the Archbishop. The Archbishop had
had many clashes with the British authorities in Bombay, and also
with Bishop Alcantara. He was delighted to find that Bishop
Prendergast was so agreeable, and so learned in Portuguese language
and culture. He even urged Prendergast to change places with
Alcantara. If Prendergast were in Bombay the Archbishop promised to
cede to him the padroado churches in the Bombay Presidency, some
50 in all. It was an imaginative idea, which would have put an end to
much ecclesiastical strife. Prendergast replied cautiously that he ought
to obey the Papal directive sending him to Kerala. The Archbishop
wrote a strong plea to Propaganda Fide, which was effectively
ignored. 14 So Prendergast went to Kerala, where he was soon involved
in caste conflict and eventually was in disgrace. 1s
When he arrived he showed great vigour. He said he would enforce
more discipline on the Indian clergy. Priests should always wear
clerical dress. They should live in the clergy house. They should only
hear confessions in church. They should preach every Sunday. All this
ruffled clerical feathers. 16 But Prendergast went much further. He
proposed to satisfy the demand of leaders of the low-ranking
Mukkava, or Fisher, caste that some of their boys should be trained
for ordination.
The Fisher caste claimed, with some reason, to be descended from
the earliest converts of the celebrated St Francis Xavier. With
prosperity some of them had moved from fishing into trade - a well-
tried method of social mobility. But in Kerala caste boundaries were
defended with the greatest strictness. In the 1780s a Bavarian bishop
had offered a few Fishers places in his seminary, but there was so
much opposition from the higher castes that he gave up the idea.
When around 1790 the Portuguese Bishop of Cochin had arranged
for two Fisher caste boys to be trained in Goa rather than Kerala,
there were still many difficulties. One died before he could be
ordained priest. The other was duly ordained and went back to
Kerala, but could not find a parish because of high-caste hostility. He
became a vagabond and died young, reported Father Saverio, no
friend to ambitious boys of low status. Again in the 1790s Bishop
Luigi had admitted a Fisher caste boy to his seminar under conditions
of the greatest secrecy. The boy passed as an Eurasian, and was
accepted by the other boys until some one found out who he really
26
was, whereupon so many of the boys turned against him that he had
to go.
A few years later high-caste hostility again prevented the admission
of two Fisher boys to the seminary. Father Prospero, then Vicar-
General under Bishop Raimondo, consulted Alcantara when the latter
visited Kerala in 1815. Alcantara took the boys with him on his return
to Bombay and decided to wait until the arrival of Bishop
Prendergast. When Prendergast arrived in Kerala, full of energy and
resourcefulness, he suggested that the boys would be trained in the
more tolerant atmosphere of Bombay. After they had been ordained
they would serve there. Alcantara agreed, but the idea that these
Fisher boys would eventually be priests was galling to high-caste
circles in Kerala. 17
After his whirlwind of reforms, Prendergast went on a long tour,
visiting sixty-five churches. IS While he was away complaints against
him were carefully written out by different priests and sent to Rome.
Father Joseph a Pinto and other Indian priests submitted a joint
memorandum. When Prendergast was angry, they complained, he
would hit even well-born people. He forced many men to marry
women merely because they had seduced them, although these
marriages were opposed by respectable families. Finally, he had been
sexually immoral. 19 Then Father Nicola di Gesu Maria sent his own
list of complaints to Propaganda Fide. He was Prendergast's
confidential secretary, but he took advantage of Prendergast's absence
on tour to draw up these complaints. When Prendergast came back,
he continued to use Father Nicola as his secretary. Nicola's
handwriting shows that he was still writing letters which Prendergast
trustingly signed. 20 Some of his accusations seemed very unconvin-
cing, for example, he asserted that Prendergast wanted to drive all the
Discalced Carmelites out of India. (Most of the Carmelites in India
were Discalced: Prendergast was in a minority). A more damaging
accusation was that a servant had seen a woman going into the
Bishop's room. 21
Bishop Alcantara was asked to investigate, and he designated his
assistant Bishop Maurelio Stabellini to go to Kerala and report. Like
Prendergast, Stabellini had had a brilliant academic career. His
education had also been unusually wide - in Natural Science, Latin,
French, Portuguese and Arabic. He carried out methodical enquiries
in Kerala.
He examined 141 people, mostly priests. Father Nicola made the
most specific accusations. He stated in writing that Prendergast had
27
had intercourse with women on four specific days. But on examina-

tion he said merely that he had once seen a woman go into the
Bishop's room, and on the three other occasions servants told him
they had seen women go there. It seemed that Nicola had gone around
asking servants if they had ever seen women in the Bishop's room.
Father Pinto also said he had seen a woman go into the Bishop's room.
Father Andrea said he had heard that someone unnamed had taken his
sister to the Bishop, who gave her four rupees after she had been in his
room. Father Pasquale da Costa said the servants talked about such
things.22
Bishop Stabellini also heard criticisms of Prendergast's anger and
impatience. He was also said to be unjust and extortionate. On the
other hand, there were many witnesses who spoke well of him.
Stabellini concluded that Prendergast's reforms had done much good.
Prendergast does seem to have been a reformer, energetic but heedless
of people's feelings. As for the complaints of extortion, it seemed that
Prendergast would fine people for various offences, but the fines were
put into a box for charities. Stabellini did not know what to make of
the accusations of immorality, but he concluded that there was now so
much gossip that Prendergast could do no more good in Kerala. 23
When this disquieting report arrived in Rome, a special committee
was appointed, headed by the Prefect of Propaganda Fide, Cardinal
Cappellari. He later became Pope Gregory XVI, and did much to
energise missionary work. It was agreed that charges of sexual
immorality were difficult to prove or disprove. But it was noted that a
mysterious cloud had hung over Prendergast's arrival in Kerala. 24
Shortly before he left for India an accusation of immorality had been
brought against him in the Holy Office. Perhaps fearing that it was
difficult to defend oneself once the Inquisition had begun its work, he
set off for India, ignoring the summons to present himself before the
Holy Office in Rome.
Meanwhile there was consternation in ecclesiastical circles in
Dublin. Father Thomas Finney, the Carmelite Superior, investigated
the matter. He found that the charge had been made up by a drunken
priest who was jealous of Prendergast. There was nothing in it. The
Archbishop of Dublin and many other members of the Irish hierarchy
knew Prendergast well and were close friends of his. He was widely
respected. 25 But however unjustified the accusation, the fact remained
that Prendergast had evaded the jurisdiction of the Holy Office. A
Solemn rebuke was sent to him, and he had been ordered to seek
absolution from a Bishop or priest, as seemed appropriate to him. 26 In
28
short, someone in Bombay or Kerala had heard his confession. Was it

Father Nicola?
He left Kerala for Bombay in 1828. Bishop Alcantara had been
hoping he would go somewhere else. The last thing Alcantara wanted
was a scandal in Bombay. Soon enough, however, Alcantara was
telling Propaganda Fide of Prendergast's merits. He found him very
helpful, especially in advising the many Irish Catholic soldiers there,
and he would have liked to keep him in Bombay. But eventually, in
1839, Propaganda Fide told him he must leave India. Eventually he
went to Brazil, where he died??
Meanwhile, Bishop Stabellini, Prendergast's successor, was looking
into things in Kerala. He thought the Indian priests were mediocre
and the seminary poor. He decided on drastic changes. In particular,
he wanted to admit young men of the Fisher caste to the seminary and
the priesthood. He had already brought with him to Kerala Father
Pasquale Baylon of the Fisher caste. Pasquale had been trained in
Bombay in accordance with Prendergast's scheme. 28 Stabellini
brought him as an interpreter, but higher caste priests complained.
Then the seminary students refused to serve at a Mass said by
Pasquale. Stabellini was shocked, and wrote a pastoral letter in which
he pointed out that St Peter, the first Pope, had been a fisherman. He
followed this up with a declaration to be signed by priests and
seminary students to the effect that they would not oppose the
ordination of Fisher caste candidates. 29
Then Father Nicola intervened. He complained to Father Saverio
that Bishop Stabellini was trying to destroy the Carmelite mission by
creating trouble, for example by favouring Fisher caste boys.30 After
refusing the Papal invitation to Kerala Save rio was still living in his
remote hospice, nursing his grievances. Prompted by Nicola, Saverio
complained to Stabellini. Gentle persuasion was the only way to deal
with caste. Stabellini was too forceful. In fact, the church refused to
ordain many types of people through no fault of their own - for
example, if they were hunch-backed, lame, cross-eyed or illegitimate.
This was so that people would not be scornful of priests. Similarly,
low castes could be excluded. 31 However, this did not meet the main
argument pressed by Stabellini - that Christ had turned especially to
the poor and under-privileged.
Even so, Saverio made one telling point. Previous missionaries had
not opposed caste so forcibly. So the priests and students who were
now confronted with Stabellini's declaration might well feel they were
being treated unfairly. Another point which had an impact in Rome
29
was Nicola's warning that high-caste priests might go over to

Portuguese jurisdiction if Stabellini's pressure continued. 32
By the early months of 1830 Stabellini was close to despair. He had
met so much opposition that he felt he could do no more good in
Kerala. He appealed to Propaganda Fide to release him. 33 He had
unwisely made Nicola his Vicar-General, and it was now known that
Nicola disagreed with him. He began to think the students were
laughing at him. 34
When Propaganda Fide considered the problem it was agreed to
postpone a final decision. Meanwhile, Stabellini was told to stop
admitting Fisher caste boys to the Kerala seminary. Those already
there were to be transferred to the Bombay seminary. The Sacred
Congregation recalled that, in 1778, to conciliate high castes in
Madura, they agreed to leave the low castes with separate places in
churches and cemeteries and also to separate entrances in churches. 35
Stabellini's reaction was to argue that this would produce
dissatisfaction in the Fisher caste. He therefore thought it prudent
to avoid revealing publicly the orders of Propaganda Fide pending
further instructions. But he reminded Propaganda Fide that the Fisher
caste were numerous, and that there were some English 'pseudo-
missionaries' who wanted to turn them into Protestants. He was now
more optimistic. In September 1831 he reported that four priests had
agreed to sign his declaration promising not to oppose Fisher caste
organisations. 36 But by then Propaganda Fide had read and accepted
his request to resign. Saverio had been appointed in his place, and
took office in January 1832.
In his more optimistic mood Stabellini had also proposed a solution
of the caste controversy. He had suggested that after the five or six
Fisher caste boys accepted from Kerala but trained in Bombay had
been ordained, they should return to Kerala, but serve only in
churches attended exclusively or mainly by Fisher caste congrega-
tions. Propaganda Fide duly accepted this proposal. Saverio was told
to find five or six suitable Fisher caste boys and send them to Bombay
for training. He was also reminded that Christ had chosen fishermen
among his disciples. 37
Bishop Saverio, however, made various difficulties. He seems to
have thought that his appointment had brought peace to ecclesiastical
circles in Kerala, and he had no wish to disturb things. Everyone was
content, he claimed - except for a few Fisher caste people. He blamed
Father Pasquale for stirring them up because he did not want to go
back to Bombay. But Saverio had to admit there were difficulties in
30
Alleppey. Some Fisher caste people there wanted to transfer

themselves to Portuguese jurisdiction. Saverio blamed Father Callisto,
another Fisher caste priest ordained by Stabellini. 38
Saverio also tried some delaying tactics. He told Propaganda Fide
that he was puzzled by their instructions. They wanted him to choose
some suitable Fisher caste boys. But he knew no Fisher caste families
personally, and he could not rely on anyone else to advise him about a
boy's suitability. It was too sensitive a matter. Also, no accommoda-
tion would be available for such boys in the rooms of the Bombay
seminary, yet they could not be allowed to live on their own in such a
lascivious society. And he had yet another argument. If Propaganda
Fide's instructions were made public, violent hostility would be
aroused. So he proposed to do nothing until further orders.
However, Saverio's delaying tactics were not successful, although
Stabellini had once acted in a similar way. Father Pasquale soon learnt
just what the new instructions were. Saverio suspected that Stabellini,
now in Goa, must have told him. Pasquale said publicly that the
Bishop had already seen, or soon would see, the new instructions, and
he informed a caste meeting about them. He also wrote to Saverio for
permission to celebrate Mass in Kerala, in view of Propaganda Fide's
decision. Hitherto, Saverio had consistently refused to let him do so,
on the ground that his duties were in Bombay. Saverio now repeated
his prohibition.
A few days after the caste meeting he received a letter with many
signatures written on behalf of various members of the Fisher caste
and asking him to carry out the instructions of Rome. He thought it
was insolent and seditious, typical of low-caste people. He replied
equivocally that if he had received instructions from Rome in their
favour he would have carried them out if the seditious spirit of the
Fishers had not made them unworthy of the church's favour. He
suspected that Father Pasquale had drafted the letter. Then Pasquale
again asked permission to say Mass, and added that he would be
leaving for Bombay by the end of the year. Saverio replied that he first
wanted a deposit of 50 rupees as a guarantee that Pasquale would
keep his word. This provoked another letter from the Fishers which he
thought was as insolent as the first one.
Then he learnt that Pasquale was planning a new church in
Travancore, which he proposed to put under Portuguese jurisdiction.
He quickly appealed to the British Resident, and at the Resident's
request the Raja of Travancore prohibited the building of the new
church. Behind Pasquale's plans Saverio thought he detected the secret
31
work of Stabellini. So he wrote a bitter letter complaining that if

Stabellini succeeded Alcantara no Carmelite would be willing to serve
in Bombay, Stabellini read the letter and was so upset that he asked
permission to go back to Italy. Eventually he retired to Ferrara, his
birthplace. But Saverio still suspected enemies. 39 In 1836 he found
rebellious tendencies in some priests. He blamed the influence of the
Portuguese ecclesiastical governor of Cochin, Father Manuel Neves.
In 1838 three of his churches transferred to Portuguese jurisdiction.
He blamed their Fisher caste parishioners. Low caste people, he
asserted, were always ready to do wicked things. 4o
In 1838, however, his hand was strengthened by the Papal Brief
Multa Praeclare. Among its other provisions the Portuguese diocese of
Cochin was suppressed. But Father Neves announced that in
territories under the padroado Papal Briefs had no validity without
the approval of the Portuguese government. Saverio was irritated to
find that the padroado clergy who operated from Co chin carried on as
before. They took no notice of him. He hoped that his position would
be further strengthened in 1840, when he was made an Archbishop -
of Sardia in partibus infidelium. He wrote to Father Neves to
announce this new dignity and demand his obedience. In fact, Father
Neves himself had been designated a Bishop by the Portuguese
authorities, but his appointment had never received Papal approval.
To Saverio's mortification Neves did not seem to be impressed. He
replied with a satirical letter addressing Saverio as 'Your Amplitude',
and urging him to imitate his namesake, St Francis Xavier, by
sacrificing himself as a missionary and going to Sardia, which was
now in Muslim hands. Even worse, Neves sent copies of his letter to
all the priests in the former diocese of Cochin. 41
The Papal brief of 1838 was followed by various struggles for
jurisdiction. Mattancheri, in Cochin island, gained particular notori-
ety. In 1838 a group of parishioners asked to be transferred to
Saverio's jurisdiction. They were led by a priest, Padre D'Cruz, and
they claimed that some 5,000 wanted to be transferred. They added
that Padre Torres, the parish priest, who remained faithful to the
padroado, was only supported by about 200, 'most of whom are of
lower order,.42
Any change of jurisdiction had to be approved by the government
- in this case the Raja of Cochin and the British Resident, who
reported to the Government of Madras. The British were particularly
likely to look at numbers. So a battle of statistics followed. Father
Neves told the Resident that the last parish census in 1830 revealed
32
that Mattancheri had only 3,894 parishioners, and that cholera must
have since reduced their number. So the advocates of change could not
be as many as 5,000.43 This was hardly a strong argument, but the
supporters of the padroado soon manufactured stronger ammunition,
based on ideas of equal rights. Their opponent, they said, had referred
slightingly to them as people of low status, but in their church a
meeting was convened if anything was to be changed, and everyone
could take part in the discussion. Those who supported the padroado
included the judge and a master mariner. Most of the Fisher caste
were fishermen or seamen, but the richer ones had taken to trade. 44
A new and energetic Resident, Captain Archibald Douglas, then
appeared. He consulted the Diwan of Cochin, T. Venkatasubbiah. The
Diwan undertook a formal investigation. He summoned ten
representatives of each side to explain their respective positions, and
he asked Padre Torres to produce the church registers so that his
figures could be checked. But Padre Torres refused to produce the
registers, and Venkatasubbiah turned instead to the Tehsildar, the
local administrator, who provided the following statistics:
For the padroado:

Households Persons
Eurasians 37 175
High caste 152 589
Fishers 160 631
Washermen 10 40
Total 359 1435
For Bishop Saverio:
Eurasians 58 312
High caste 537 2486
Fishers 3 6
Total 598 2804
The figures showed that the low castes overwhelmingly preferred

Portuguese jurisdiction. Comments from the Diwan and the Resident
confirmed this. Venkatasubbiah concluded that Bishop Saverio's
supporters were not only in the majority but they had the advantage
'in regard to respectability and intelligence,.45 Clearly, he had in mind
some correlation between social status and intelligence which would
not be acceptable in a more scientific age. Douglas had roughly
similar social assumptions, and he told the Madras government that
Saverio's supporters represented 'nearly all the respectability and three
fourths of the numbers of the Parishioners or bona fide owners of the
33
Church Property'. He recommended that the church should be

transferred to Saverio's jurisdiction.46
The idea that property rights were at issue alarmed the British
authorities. The Madras government referred the question to the
Government of India. It was agreed that a British government could
never recognise any authority on the part of 'the Pope of Rome' to
decide such matters. 47 The tricky question was hastily referred to the
Court of Directors, who resolved in 1840 to leave it to the law
courts. 48 But the law courts were as expensive in India as in England.
People decided to take matters into their own hands. The following
year the church was seized by Saverio's supporters, although the
supporters of the padroado kept hold of the clergy house. At one point
in these troubled times Saverio heard that the Diwan had ruled that all
Christians were under the padroado, presumably an attempt to keep
the peace. Saverio, however, thought the Diwan had been bribed, and
he appealed to Douglas. Douglas obligingly had the ruling rescinded,
and the Diwan was dismissed. 49
Saverio made great efforts to explain himself in English to the
British authorities. Neves, he told them, was 'a very litigious
wrangler'. 50 At Artungel the church was held by parishioners
favourable to Neves, while the vestry was held by Saverio's
supporters. He explained that these were mostly of high caste while
his opponents were 'all without exception of the fishing caste, men
bold fierce and at every time ready to come at cudgels'. This
stereotype of the aggressive Fishers of Kerala resembles that applied to
the Fishers of Madras and Tamil Nadu. When Saverio attempted a
statistical assessment he found in 1841 that the 'Papists', as he called
his followers, numbered 234,879, while the 'no-Papists', his curious
term for those faithful to the padroado, numbered only 29,695. He
added characteristically that 'the greatest part of the no-Papists are
Fishers, daily labourers and others of low caste'.
But Saverio's energies were flagging. He would reflect that he was
the oldest missionary in India (he had been born in 1771), and he was
in charge of the largest vicariate in India. True, he had some helpers:
two had come in 1833 - Father Bernadino di S. Agnese and Father
Bernardino di S. Teresa. He had misgivings about both of them,
however. He thought Father Bernardino di S. Agnese had something
wrong with him mentally: he was subject to sudden fits of depression. 51
Both men were insubordinate. 52 Two others arrived in 1836 - Fathers
Gregorio and Ludovico. Saverio thought little of Gregorio, but
Ludovico seemed to be a young man of unusual ability and devotion.
34
Saverio began to plead for a coadjutor Bishop to help him, and to

succeed him when the time came. Father Ludovico seemed the right
man, and he was appointed in 1839. Unfortunately, Ludovico was
junior to his rivals, who resented his appointment. Born in 1809 he
was five years younger than Bernardino di S. Agnese and two years
younger than Bernardino di S. Teresa. When Ludovico reported in
1844 that Archbishop Saverio was dying he conveyed the suggestion
that he himself ought to be made an Archbishop in Saverio's place. He
explained that this had been Saverio's idea, and that it would help him
to deal with Syrian Christians. These points were appreciated in
Rome, and Ludovico was made an Archbishop in the following
year. 53 He did his best to conciliate his disappointed rivals. On his
advice two new vicariates were created, for Mangalore and Quilon.
Bernardino di S. Agnese went to Mangalore and was made a Bishop,
and coadjutor to Ludovico, while Bernardino di S. Teresa went to
Quilon as Pro-Vicar Apostolic, and was made a Bishop shortly
afterwards, in 1847.
Ludovico now began to formulate a programme of radical reforms.
He devised plans to improve the standards of the Indian clergy. He
prohibited caste distinctions in church. He also prohibited the
reservation of places for respectable people. There were requests
from members of the Fisher caste that some of their boys be accepted
for training as priests. In 1850 Ludovico formally reported to
Propaganda Fide that this question should again be considered. 54
Soon enough accusations began to be made against him.
At first these accusations were vague, and they were relayed
through his old rivals. Bernardino di S. Teresa told his colleague
Bernardino di S. Agnese in 1851 that he had heard many calumnies
against Ludovico. He might be their Archbishop, but he was younger
than they were and had had less experience of the country. Perhaps he
was 'innocent'. The calumnies might have originated in the malice of
the local people. 55 Bernardino di S. Agnese suggested meeting
Ludovico and telling him to change his ways. But his colleague
replied that this might be dangerous. Ludovico could be formidable
when he was angry. He could write to Rome, and the consequences
might be unfortunate. 56
But Bernardino di S. Agnese decided to be resolute, and he wrote
to the head of his order in Rome. He portrayed himself as a
watchdog who wanted to warn the shepherd of shepherds of the
danger to the flock. Because of Ludovico's indulgence and puerility
there was serious discord. He might be innocent but the corrupt and
35
malicious people of Kerala were saying wicked things about him.

Ludovico showered gifts on the family of Archbishop Saverio's old
servant. The eldest son was now working as Ludovico's servant, but
he was paid, fed and clothed as if he were of noble family. Ludovico
would sometimes see the mother, accompanied by her son, at night.
When she became pregnant people accused Ludovico. Bernardino
had asked Ludovico outright, but he denied it «rem habuerit cum
ilia? negavit,).57 On the other hand, according to Bernardino,
Ludovico failed to discipline immoral, adulterous and incestuous
priests.
The Carmelite Vicar-General submitted this correspondence to
Propaganda Fide. He noted shrewdly that Bishop Bernardino di S.
Agnese seemed ingenuous. But Ludovico seemed to have been lax in
not removing the grounds for these calumnies. Ludovico should be
advised to do so at once. 58 All the same, the stream of accusations
continued. The two Bishops' assertions became more extravagant.
The Syrian Catholics were so disgusted with Ludovico that they were
collecting money to send to Alexandria for a Bishop of their own.
Soon they would be in schism! Archbishop Ludovico was so
presumptuous that he would like to govern the whole world!
Verapoli, they wrote, 'is a real Babylon, a bordello, where everyone
does what pleases him' ('e una vera Babilonia, e un bordello, ove
ciascuno fa quello che g/i piace'). Archbishop Ludovico wanted to be
a Patriarch, a Cardinal, even a Pope!59
In Rome it was thought prudent to move cautiously as calumnies
were often invented to discredit missionaries. 6o The two Bishops
finally submitted a joint demand to the effect that Ludovico should be
recalled under some honorific pretext, for example to provide
information about the mission in Kerala. 61 However, as well as their
accusations there was another matter to be discussed with Ludovico.
The Carmelite mission in Bombay was also troubled by bitter
controversies involving its Bishop. Propaganda Fide wanted to
consider the future of Carmelite missions in India. Archbishop
Ludovico's advice would be useful. It was decided to recall him. In
Rome, he defended himself calmly. He said he had merely carried out
Archbishop Saverio's wishes in looking after his servant's family. He
suggested that Propaganda Fide should ask the opinion of Father
Puccinelli, a Jesuit from Tamilnadu who had spent some time in
Kerala and was now in Rome. 62
Puccinelli submitted a businesslike report. He found that the
criticisms of Ludovico had originally come from Padre Francesco, an
36
Indian priest whom Ludovico had dismissed from his office of

procurator for embezzling 12,000 rupees in four years. Saverio's
servant Lazzaro Pereira had worked for him for twenty-six years
before he died leaving a widow and six children. It was true that
Ludovico had carried out Saverio's wishes in looking after them. In
fact, the Malabar mission in Kerala was in a healthy state. There had
been some expansion since the beginning of the century. There were
now 24 Latin parishes with 41 priests and 69,180 Catholics. There
were also 111 Syrian parishes with 397 priests and 158,826 Syrian-
rite Catholics. Ludovico had organised a group of catechists who
claimed to be making 2,000 converts a year. He had established a
vernacular printing press, a hospital for the sick poor and several
elementary schools. He had made the clergy wear clerical dress and he
had refused to allow caste distinctions in church. 63
Father Puccinelli strongly recommended that Archbishop Ludovico
should return to Kerala at once, as this would demonstrate his
innocence. But by now he was involved in the wide-ranging
discussions taking place in Rome about the future of Carmelite
missions. He was writing a lengthy report, and the problems of caste
still preoccupied him. The Bombay Carmelites had been criticised for
relegating Indian priests to subordinate positions. More generally, the
Carmelites were criticised for neglecting seminary education. Ludo-
vico agreed that seminaries for Indians were important but he
emphasised the danger of caste and recommended a separate seminary
in Kerala for low castes. 64
When Propaganda Fide came to consider the affairs of the Malabar
mission, in December 1852, the question of his return was deferred.
Bishop Bernardino di S. Agnese, his most vociferous critic, was called
to Rome, but he died soon after landing in Italy. Propaganda Fide
turned to Carmelite problems again in January 1854. Then it was
agreed that the Carmelites should leave Bombay, but a decision about
Ludovico was again deferred. It was resolved to investigate the matter
with the greatest secrecy and delicacy. And his health was now giving
cause for concern. 65 Bishop Bernardino di S. Teresa continued to
administer affairs in his place. And he continued to send warning
letters to Propaganda Fide about the threats to his authority if
Ludovico were allowed to return. One of these threats was the
popular opinion of Ludovico's sanctity. He was said to have
performed miracles. 66 Hitherto the argument against Ludovico's
return was that people thought he was immoral. Now it was that
people thought he was a saint.
37
Either way, it seemed, Bernardino desperately wanted his post. As

for the authorities in Rome, they wanted to avoid trouble. The longer
Ludovico remained away from Kerala the less prudent it seemed to let
him go back for fear of reopening the old controversies. Eventually, in
July 1855 it was suggested to him that in view of his uncertain health
he ought to resign rather than return to an area of such difficulties. 67
Perturbed, he asked for time to consider the situation. Finally, in
November 1855, he offered his resignation, which was promptly
accepted. 68 Bernardino di S. Teresa was at least successful: he was also
made an Archbishop.
There was now no question of accepting Fisher-caste boys in the
Malabar seminary. In the 1880s Bishop Marcellino Berardi, Coadju-
tor in Malabar, said that for thirty-five years he had never dared to
mention the subject of caste there. 69 But things were different in
Cochin. There, under the Portuguese ecclesiastical governor, Fisher
boys had been admitted to the seminary and after training had
become priests. This situation produced an explosive controversy
when the diocese of Cochin was formally resuscitated as a result of the
1886 concordat between Rome and Lisbon.
The first result of the concordat was the installation of Bishop Joao
Gomes Ferreira in 1887. Only 37 years old, he had previously served
in Macao and had no experience of India. But he was confident that
he could inaugurate a more liberal era in Cochin. And the statistics
revealed what progress Fisher priests had made during the intervening
years under the Portuguese ecclesiastical governor. After some
territorial adjustment the new diocese contained 11 churches with
10 Fisher priests and 26,000 parishioners, who had come to call
themselves the 500 families. Higher-caste Catholics, calling them-
selves the 700 families, numbered 31,000, with 12 churches and 11
priests. 7o In other words, although high-caste Catholics still felt
themselves in the majority, it was a relatively small majority, and
Fisher priests had gained significantly in numbers. Among the high
castes there was also the fear that a Portuguese Bishop would favour
the Fishers, who had been so faithful to the padroado.
Soon after Ferreira arrived he issued a pastoral letter in which he
described class prejudice as harmful and urged Catholics to have
charitable feelings towards each other. This aroused some resentment
in high-caste circles. In memorials from high-caste priests he was
reminded of the instructions issued by Propaganda Fide in 1832. They
had specified four or five Fisher priests in Malabar. But there were
already ten in Cochin. This was an awkward point. Ferreira told the
38
Apostolic Delegate that the instructions must be regarded as out of

date. There were now more Fisher churches. He also consulted the
Archbishop of Goa on the question. The Archbishop advised him not
to touch caste questions. But it seemed impossible to avoid them. 71
He wanted to use the existing seminary at Alleppey as his diocesan
seminary. But high-caste spokesmen complained because it had been
used by Fisher-caste students. Archbishop Leonardo Mellano of
Verapoli advised Ferreira to build a new one for high castes. Some of
the high castes said they would join low-caste students in a new
seminary. But Ferreira objected that to build it would be expensive
and would imply that the church officially recognised caste as
something permanent. He thought a preferable solution would be to
send high-caste students to Goa to study for the priesthood there. n
From his point of view this would be a temporary compromise until
caste feeling became more moderate. He thought that the 'casteism'
('castismo') of Cochin was an aberration.
When he embarked on his first pastoral visit in January 1888 he
took with him a socially mixed retinue - a high-caste Indian priest, a
Fisher priest, a European priest as secretary, a Eurasian priest as
interpreter and a high-caste deacon as treasurer. He went to six
churches without incident: four were Fisher churches and two were
high-caste. But there was trouble when he came to Tanghi - a mixed
church with substantial numbers both of Fishers and high castes.
Before he went inside, a high-caste deputation asked him to leave
behind the Fisher priest he had in his retinue. To avoid offending
either group he decided not to go in.
Soon afterwards he received a memorial asking not only for a
separate seminary for high castes but also for an assurance that no
Fisher priest would be allowed to say Mass in a church attended by
high castes or a mixed congregation. Rather than give a written reply
he called a meeting. He said he would not appoint Fisher priests to
high-caste churches. But not to have Fisher priests with him on
pastoral visits would be 'contrary to all the principles of evangelical
charity' (opposta a tutti I principii di carita evangelica,)?3 Then some
high castes put forward some other demands, for example that no
Goanese priest should have precedence over a priest of the 700
families, or that no Fisher priest should be made a canon. These
demands seemed quite unacceptable to Ferreira.
Different people urged caution. Archbishop Mellano wrote from
Verapoli that the best way to reduce caste feeling was to show you
were indifferent to it?4 Father Verdier, of the Jesuit mission in
39
Madura, thought it would be very unsettling if the low castes were

encouraged to be ambitious. They were restless enough already.75
Bishop Berardi, Archbishop Mellano's coadjutor in Vera po Ii, warned
that one should remember the history of Bishop Stabellini's
difficulties. 76 Archbishop Antonio Agliardi commented that it would
be only fair to provide a separate seminary for high castes if the
Aleppey seminary was for low castes. He had clearly misunderstood
the situation. But he had been Apostolic Delegate for three years
before he was appointed Pro-Secretary to the Congregation for
Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, and in view of his exalted rank as
well as his prestigious if limited experience of India his view were
respectfully noted. 77 Finally, Propaganda Fide told Archbishop Aiuti,
the Apostolic Delegate, that Bishop Ferreira's policy seemed to be not
without danger, and they asked him to tell Ferreira of the risk he was
running. 78
When Aiuti went to Cochin shortly afterwards he decided to give
Ferreira a few tactful but specific warnings. He advised him not to
insist that high-caste students should live in the Alleppey seminary
together with Fisher students, or that Fisher priests should say Mass in
high-caste churches. Ferreira said he understood perfectly. They
agreed that high-caste students who objected to staying in Alleppey
could study instead in the Vera po Ii diocesan seminary at Puttampalli.
When a high-caste deputation insisted on seeing Aiuti he reassured
him on these points. But some high-caste spokesmen soon formulated
some further demands. They asked for a separate high-caste seminary
to be built at Portuguese expense, or alternatively that high-caste
students should be subsidised at the Verapoli diocesan seminary. Aiuti
thought this 'truly exorbitant', and made no reply. 79
Meanwhile, there had been exhaustive discussions about a common
seminary for Latin- and Syrian-rite priests in the Kerala area. In
January 1889 agreement was reached in principle, and Aiuti conveyed
news of this decision to the Bishops concerned, including Ferreira. He
took it as his opportunity for putting a stop to the demands for a
separate seminary for high-caste students. He had already obtained an
initial grant of 4,000 rupees from the Portuguese government towards
the cost of a new seminary in Cochin, on the ground that the Alleppey
seminary was disliked by the high castes. He announced that Rome's
approval of the project for a common seminary meant that there was
no longer any justification for separate provisions for high castes.
High-caste students who had gone from his diocese to the Puttampalli
seminary should return to Cochin by 15 May 1889 to train there. This
40
provoked complaints from high-caste students and some discussion

between Ai uti and Ferreira. 8o
Finally, Aiuti told Ferreira that his new proposal would conflict
with the assurances already given to the effect that high-caste students
could go to the Verapoli diocesan seminary. But he thought the
problem was quite unreal. He explained that the policy statement
from Rome merely announced that suitable candidates would be
admitted to the new seminary, as they were to Propaganda Fide's
Roman College, if they had a vocation, were of sufficient ability and
had sound morals. There would be no mention of caste. Aiuti thought
the best way to undermine caste was to ignore it. Telling high-caste
students they would have to mix with Fishers would only alienate
them. In the new seminary the regulations would avoid all mention of
caste, and so the problem would not arise. 81 Aiuti also told
Propaganda Fide that the new policy would deal 'a mortal blow'
('un colpo mortale') to the caste system. For the present, he merely
told the restive high-caste students that they were free to remain in the
Puttampalli seminary. 82
However, it appeared that the Rector of the Puttampalli seminary
had no patience with the qualms of high-caste students. This was
Father Kurz, a German Carmelite, who scorned Archbishop Mellano's
anxieties. He told Aiuti that the agitation was very like one that blew
up about four and a half years previously. Then some high-caste
priests had objected to the presence of Syrian-rite students in the
seminary. They had also demanded a separate seminary. Archbishop
Mellano had been sympathetic, but Father Kurz resisted their
demand, and the storm had blown away. Father Kurz thought the
ringleaders had 'flattered the Archbishop to his face but openly
laughed at him among themselves' ('et sicut Rev. Dmnm. Archie-
piscopum laudent in (aciem dum inter se et publice eum deridebant').
Kurz himself thought Ferreira's intentions were excellent, and he
added: 'All good men rejoice in his activities and energy' ('omnes boni
gaudent de eius activitates et energia'). But he thought there might be
trouble ahead. 83
Soon there were five students from Cochin in Puttampalli. Ferreira
suspected that Mellano's secretary, Padre Menezes, was encouraging
them: one of the students was his nephew. But there were fourteen
high-caste students in Ferreira's seminary.84 He still wanted all of
them back there, and he continued to argue the point with Aiuti. They
had an informal meeting at Ootacamund. Ferreira talked about
disobedience while Aiuti repeated his argument that ordering the five
41
to leave Puttampalli contradicted his own assurance that they could

stay. However, Aiuti emphasised that the Holy See always had at heart
'the maintenance and the splendour of the episcopal dignity and
authority' ('Ia conservazione e 10 splendore della dignita e d'autorita
vescovile'). He thought this pacified Ferreira. Then he devised a
solution to the dilemma. The five students should apologise to
Ferreira for being at Puttampalli without his permission, and request
his permission to stay there. He would then graciously grant his
permission. 85
Meanwhile the campaign petitions continued. In one, the history of
Fisher protest was narrated from the days of Bishop Stabellini and
Padre Pasquale Baylon. The petitioners asserted that when the
Verapoli seminary remained closed to Fishers their ancestors had
appealed to Rome. As a result, in 1836 an endorsement, 'Propaganda
No.5', had sanctioned the admission of Fisher boys to the seminary.
But the Bishop of Verapoli still refused to admit them, in spite of
Fisher contributions to the diocese. 86 Archbishop Mellano reacted
bitterly to this spirited protest. Far from contributing to the diocese,
he exclaimed, the Fishers had involved it in expense when churches
tried to transfer to the padroado. As for the Endorsement No.5, he
had never heard of it. This was disingenuous. Although the petitioners
had mistaken the date, it was obvious that they were referring to
Propaganda Fide's instruction of 1832, in which the fifth paragraph
instructed the Bishop to take particular care of Fisher boys training in
the seminary. Mellano asserted that the petition was impertinent and
malicious. 87 His reaction was characteristic: from Saverio onwards
the Italian Carmelite Bishops had disapproved of Fisher ambitions.
Aiuti himself commented that the petition was 'infected with a good
dose of animosity against the Carmelite Prelates' ('infetto di una
buona dose di animosita contro i Prelati Carmelitani'). But the fact
remained that Fisher students had no difficulty in the mixed seminary
of Quilon. Aiuti blamed Ferreira's tactics, which had alienated both
sides. 88 What Aiuti forgot was the warmth aroused by the revival of
the Cochin diocese, and by the fact that Fishers had meanwhile been
ordained under the padroado regime. Now they were recognised as
validly ordained priests in a diocese under a Bishop: many high-caste
priests and laity found this very galling.
Eventually, Propaganda Fide approved of Aiuti's proposal that the
five high-caste students should apologise to Ferreira, who would then
let them stay at Puttampalli. Ferreira then asked that no more Cochin
students should be admitted to Puttampalli without his permission,
42
and that the caste prejudice that divided students from each other
should be condemned as unChristian. Aiuti promptly asked Father
Kurz not to admit Cochin students without Ferreira's permission, but
he refused to condemn caste as he thought it would be counter-
productive. 89 The situation encouraged people to formulate demands.
Some high-caste priests renewed their demand for a separation in
Puttampalli between Latin- and Syrian-rite students. They said they
felt an aversion to the presence of Syrian-rite students, who were much
more numerous. In confidence Aiuti consulted Kurz, who said it could
be managed but would be inconvenient. Kurz himself pronounced it to
be quite unnecessary.90 Then some high-caste spokesmen asked that
adequate subsidies should be paid to the five students in Puttampalli.
Aiuti thought this was unacceptable. As it was, Ferreira had been
paying them 60 rupees a month out of his own pocket.
There were also complaints that Ferreira seemed hostile to caste as
such. Aiuti reflected privately that although the caste system
encouraged immobility it also contributed to tranquillity. Without
it, how could a small number of Englishmen have ruled so many
millions of Indians? He suggested that in the proposed general
seminary each caste should have its own area. This was rejected. So
were the other demands put forward by high-caste spokesmen - for a
separation between Latin- and Syrian-rite students in Putampalli, and
for subsidies for the five students. 91
Two years later Ferreira was involved in another caste controversy.
When he made a visitation to the mixed church of Saude a number of
high castes closed the attached chapel of Nazareth so that Fishers
could not get in. Ferreira promptly excommunicated 41 of them.92
Then he learnt that Padre D'Lima was likely to take charge of
Nazareth chapel. D'Lima was an old student of Puttampalli who had
been dismissed by the Rector and had later been ordained by the
Jacobite Mar Dionisius. Father Candido, Carmelite Vicar-General of
Malabar, warned Propaganda Fide that there might be a schism. 93
Ferreira suspected that Candido was behind some of the high-caste
pressure, and Archbishop Ladislao Zaleski, the new Apostolic
Delegate, thought Candido was irritable and intriguing. 94 Ferreira
sent several priests to Nazareth, accompanied by some policemen.
Some 200 Fishers also came along. But at Nazareth they were faced
by a crowd of some 1,000 high castes. Both sides were armed with
sticks. It was a stalemate.
Ferreira talked of going to the civil courts for possession of the
chapel. But Zaleski urged him not to because cases were almost
43
always tried before pagan or Protestant judges who decided against

Roman Catholic Bishops, and also because going to the courts
encouraged a rebellious spirit among the laity. Another reason was
that the British law courts were very expensive. Zaleski then
telegraphed Propaganda Fide, and was given a free hand. He decided
to revert to the instructions of 1832 with modifications. It was widely
assumed in Cochin that the instructions had been renewed. In fact this
was a misunderstanding. They had been reprinted in a collection of
Propaganda Fide's decrees. 95 Zaleski then issued a circular to the
Bishops of Malabar. He said the instructions of 1832 were not
intended as a permanent rule but merely as advice until the progress of
education and general social progress had changed social relation-
ships. In 1832 it seemed reasonable to have four or five Fisher boys in
the seminary. This no longer applied. Permission had already been
asked and granted for a larger number of Fisher priests. 96 He hastily
explained to Propaganda Fide that 'it was necessary to suppose that,
or at least to represent to the Christian population that if the Bishops
had exceeded the number it was with the permission, at least oral, of
the most eminent Cardinal Prefect' ('bisognava dunque supporre od
almena rappresentare al popolo cristiano che se i vescovi [,hanno
aumentare questo era col permesso almeno orale dell' Emo. Cardinale
Prefetto'). This specious reasoning ignored the fact that more Fisher
boys had been admitted to the seminary when Cochin was operating
under the padroado with an ecclesiastical governor who ignored the
policies of Propaganda Fide. However, Zaleski had his reasons. He
explained to Propaganda Fide that he was doing his best to conciliate
the Fishers, whose numbers and importance had greatly increased. 97
Ferreira welcomed Zaleski's circular and told him that he would
not force the high castes to go to the diocesan seminary. Those who
refused to go he would send to Goa for training, unless they insisted
on going to Puttampalli. If they did go to Puttampalli it would be at
their own expense. Zaleski agreed. He thought that studying at Goa
would have a healthy effect on high-caste students. Many Goanese
students came from Brahman families, and high-caste students from
Cochin would soon realise that they were Sudras - in other words of
low caste according to classical Hindu ideas. 98 Zaleski hoped this
would make them less proud and less likely to make a fuss about their
status when they came back to Cochin.
Meanwhile, the immediate crisis was resolved at a large meeting in
Nazareth chapel when Father Candido announced that the instruc-
tions of 1832 would be obeyed, the excommunication was lifted and
44
Mass was sung. But controversy continued. Father Candido com-

plained that Ferreira had sent a Syrian-rite priest instead of a high-
caste priest to Nazareth chape1. 99 Also, Ferreira's diocesan journal
published a series of articles to the effect that caste was incompatible
with Christianity. Zaleski telegraphed him to stop the articles. He did
so, but stated in his journal that the articles had been discontinued on
the orders of a higher authority. In the ensuing controversy high castes
demanded not only that no Fisher priest should enter their churches
but also that their own priests should have access to Fisher churches.
Now Zaleski himself began to lose patience with the high castes: he
disapproved of these new claims. Then some Fishers similarly
demanded that no high-caste priests should enter their churches if
their priests could not enter high-caste churches. Ferreira finally
appealed to Zaleski, who replied with a telegram stating that no priest
should enter a church if his presence would lead to a disturbance. This
was a simple matter of prudence, he commented. IOO Calm ensued.
But Father Candido continued to collect criticisms of Bishop
Ferreira. Finally, various Indian priests accused Candido of immor-
ality, and he was promptly ordered to Rome, ostensibly to give
information about Malabar. 101 Clearly the Fishers had learnt from
history. After his departure Cochin seemed quiet enough. Either
Candido had been the organiser of the troubles or the high-caste
leaders were silenced by his fate.
However, Propaganda Fide was thinking of a different explanation
for the discords in Kerala. Perhaps the fault lay with the traditions of
the padroado? The Prefect cautiously recommended that Portuguese
Bishops in India should act in caste matters in accordance with the
policy followed by other Bishops in India. Quite what that policy was
remained obscure, but the recommendation was accepted by the
Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. Cardinal
Rampolla duly conveyed this advice to the Archbishop of Goa.
Ferreira at once interpreted it as directed against him, and he wrote to
Cardinal Rampolla to explain that the 1832 instruction had never
been implemented in Malabar, only in Cochin. It was the reinstate-
ment of the Cochin diocese that aroused caste feeling. lo2
Rampolla thought Ferreira's arguments were worth considering,
and the matter was referred back to Zaleski, who thought of a
personal explanation. Perhaps Ferreira's attitude was the problem,
and perhaps Ferreira should be removed? But he was 'an excellent
prelate' ('un ottimo prelato'), and he was conspicuously loyal to the
Holy See. He was also admired by the other Bishops. Zaleski
45
proposed an elaborate scheme at the end of which Ferreira would be

moved to Mailapur. Apart from this Zaleski suggested that his own
general policy should be enforced. No priest should be invited to a
church if there was a likelihood of trouble, but caste would not be
mentioned. Finally, any student who wanted to go to Puttampalli
could do so, but at his own expense. 103
There was no great difference between Ferreira and Zaleski, except
that Puttampalli was left as an option for high-caste students.
However, Ferreira appealed to the Secretary of State, and the question
was referred to the Pope, who decided that Propaganda Fide should
reply. Ferreira was tactfully informed that Zaleski's policy had been
approved. 104 In the event, Ferreira remained at Cochin, where he died
in 1897, only 47 years old. As for Father Candido, he was eventually
sent to Quilon in 1901, but died in the following year.
Ferreira's successor, Bishop Matteo d'Oliviera Xavier, was soon
complaining that there were extraordinary difficulties in Cochin.
Caste distinctions were so great that the priest of one social group
could not even enter the church of another. It was almost like two
separate dioceses. This comment was duly referred to Propaganda
Fide. The response was merely a bland comment that this had long
been known, but the Bishops of India were taking appropriate policies
to deal with such problems, and it was hoped that the Bishop of
Co chin would follow suit. lOS Whatever policies might have been
envisaged, little came of them. In the years to come, this continued to
be the case. When the last Portuguese Bishop of Cochin retired in
1952 the caste of his Indian successor seemed an acute problem.
Eventually, the Gordian knot was brusquely cut and Cochin diocese
was divided into two - Alleppey and Cochin - with a Bishop of
appropriate caste in each new diocese. The problem of caste among
Catholics was still not solved.
46
Chapter IV
Carmelites and Social Conflict in

Bombay
Bombay was an arena for sharp conflict among Catholics. There was
social conflict in terms of class and caste, and there was racial
conflict in terms of competition between Indian and European
priests. In the late-eighteenth century its Carmelites saw no room for
Indian priests to serve its four churches. After seven years' study at
the Collegio Urbano in Rome young Antonio Pinto de Gloria was
ordained priest in 1778 and returned to Bombay. In the Rector's
notes it was recorded that Antonio's conduct had been very good,
that he had shown great piety and that he had sufficient ability. 1
Propaganda Fide sent him back to Bombay and ordered that he be
paid a moderate stipend (60 scudi a year) until he had found a
parish. 2 He came back full of confidence - challenging the head of
the Carmelite mission in Bombay and writing complaints to the
Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda Fide.
When Father Vittorio became head of the mission in 1786, Antonio
wrote to the Cardinal Prefect that this appointment meant that there
would be no reforms in Bombay'S churches. Of the four parishes on
Bombay island Father Vittorio had charge of two and Father Carlo
had charge of the other two, although, Antonio wrote, there were
Indian priests well-qualified to take charge of parishes. This seems to
have been a matter of European rather than Italian prejudice, for
Father Vittorio was a German who had joined the Roman Carmelite
province: in secular life his name had been Franz Xavier Schweizer.
Antonio also complained that although he spent his time teaching
Grammar, Rhetoric and Moral Theology to candidates for the
priesthood he had been paid nothing for three years and was in debt. 3
Some parishioners of the Church of Nossa Senhora d'Esperanc;a
also complained that as a result of this state of affairs their priests did
not live in the parish, in violation of a rule of the Council of Trent.
47
They added that they knew of worthy and able local priests. 4 Vittorio
replied tartly that Bishops and Superiors were enabled to dispense
from this provision of the Council of Trent, and that the parochial
house was so dilapidated that a priest could not live there. 5 But the
parishioners repeated their complaint, adding that it was useful for a
parish priest to know the language of the country. 6 In fact, a previous
Bishop had commented that Vittorio's weakness was his ignorance of
Marathi, although his Portuguese was adequate. 7
When these complaints were considered in Rome their validity was
accepted. Propaganda Fide told Father Vittorio in 1787 that they were
surprised that after so many years in Bombay he had not troubled to
learn Maratha. (He had been there since 1774). They also stated that
it was an abuse for one priest to hold two parishes. He ought to live in
the parochial house, however dilapidated it was. Propaganda Fide
also declared their approval of the custom that while a priest should
assume responsibility for the upkeep of the fabric of his church he
should render accounts at the end of the year to six 'deputies'
(deputati) chosen by the people. Furthermore, in the appointment of
parish priests preference should be given to 'nationals with a
knowledge of the language of their country' ('i nazionali pratici della
lingua patria') rather than to foreigners (forestieri). Father Vittorio
and Father Carlo should each resign one parish: Padre Antonio should
be appointed to one and another secular priest to the other. Finally,
Antonio should be paid a more suitable stipend (at least 180 scudi a
year).8
But when these instructions arrived in Bombay, Propaganda Fide
no longer had any authority there. In response to diplomatic pressure
the Court of Directors ordered in 1786 that the authority of the
Archbishop of Goa should be restored in Bombay: this was at a time
when the home government wanted to counter criticism that it was
neglecting England's historic ties with Portugal in the interests of a
new commercial relationship with France. Soon there were protests.
Michael Firth, the Chief of Mahim, forwarded a petition signed by
390 Roman Catholics in favour of the Carmelites. Bishop Vittorio
devised various arguments. The Company had invited the Carmelites
to Bombay in the first place, and had no complaints against them.
Also, they were 'entire strangers' in the land and needed their parishes
for their livelihood. 9 So the Governor-in-Council agreed 'from
motives of humanity and equity' to ask the Archbishop of Goa to
leave them in their posts. After all, they seemed to be 'men of
unexceptional character' .10
48
CARMELITES AND SOCIAL CONFLICT IN BOMBAY
But the government's request met an unsympathetic response. The

Archbishop's Vicar-General announced ominously that he would soon
'enter into the examination of the capacity and conduct of the several
clergymen inhabitants of the island and into the state and condition of
the several churches therein'. 'Capacity' was the key word. How
capable were the Carmelites if they had never learnt an Indian
language? The Vicar-General added grimly that he himself thought it
improper for the Carmelites to hold benefices, not only because of
their vows of poverty but also because of their 'ignorance of the
languages of the Natives, especially when there are secular priests fit
and proper for the purposes'. He conceded magnanimously that the
Carmelites could stay where they were for the time being, but the
Archbishop would of course make a final decisionY It seemed highly
likely that his decision would be unfavourable.
Then Padre Pinto thought he could improve his chances of
promotion by exerting pressure through the Bombay government.
He wrote them a letter in which he mentioned his father's military
service under the Company. He then deployed arguments of
nationalism and utility. 'I know the country language and can attain
the functions of my office as priest with much more utility than any of
the Carmelites who neither understand nor can have any knowledge
of the country language.' When he was eventually made parish priest
of a church he complained it was a poor one. He added that he was
quite prepared to submit to the Archbishop of Goa's authority.12
At the same time the Goanese Vicar-General was insisting that the
Carmelites should submit to the Archbishop of Goa by taking an oath
of obedience, and by publicly assisting at the formal announcement of
his commission as Vicar-General, when the clergy would swear
allegiance to him. This was to take place at the principal church of
Nossa Senhore de Esperan<;:a on 15 May. Bishop Vittorio agreed that
his colleagues should go, but asked to be excused from going himself
as it would be derogatory for a Bishop to swear an oath to a mere
Vicar-General. 13 After the ceremony had taken place, Major-General
Medows, the Governor of Bombay, wrote a tactful letter to the
Archbishop of Goa to the effect that it would be 'highly acceptable' to
the government if the Carmelites could remain in their posts. True, the
Bishop had not taken the oath to the Vicar-General, but 'a contest
between these reverend gentlemen might cause confusion'. He for his
part had asked the Bishop not to interfere with the Vicar-General's
activities or exercise any spiritual jurisdiction until the Archbishop
had decided the matter. 14 But the Archbishop replied coldly that the
49
Portuguese government had ordered members of religious orders

operating under Propaganda Fide to leave all churches in his
jurisdiction. 15
Meanwhile the Vicar-General set about the congenial task of
replacing the Carmelites. He took care to point out that he was
choosing 'native' priests. 16 But soon there was trouble. Various
parishioners of the church of Salva<;ao, Mahim, complained of the
doings of their new priest, Padre Jose Fernando. He had already
clashed with the head of the lay fraternity and refused the music
master permission to play during the annual fraternity celebrations. 1?
Seventy-six parishioners of St Michael's, Mahim, complained about
their new priest, Padre Sebastian Pereira, who had 'so troublesome
and unquiet a temper'. He had insulted the carpenters working on the
roof. 18 Finally, Padre Ignacio Gomes, as Vicar-General, asked him to
resign, but he refused. Then Gomes asked the government to agree to
his dismissal, to which it agreed. Padre Pereira quickly resigned, and
Gomes with equal speed appointed a successor, with the government's
approval.
But the Archbishop of Goa ordered Padre Gomes to reinstate Padre
Pereira. 'It being really the case of misremembrance of the said
Archbishop', as Gomes tactfully explained. Ever resourceful, Gomes
told Pereira that in spite of the Archbishop'S order he could not be
reinstated as the government had already confirmed the appointment
of his successor. But Pereira obstinately went back to St Michael's on
his own accord. Consequently, in the words of Padre Gomes, 'there
happened great disturbances'. The parishioners themselves took
charge of the church and refused to let Padre Pereira come in. 19
Disorder prompted official intervention. The Governor-in-Council
decided to express their support for Padre Gomes, who had dealt so
firmly with Padre Pereira: 'that turbulent priest must be given to
understand that if he does not conduct himself soberly & quietly as a
mere Inhabitant, we shall take measures to turn him off the island'. 20
Protests from aggrieved parishioners were duly forwarded to the
Court of Directors. Soon enough, the policy of 1786 was reversed,
and the Court ordered that the jurisdiction of the Carmelite Bishop
should be restored in place of that of the Archbishop of Goa. The
order reached Bombay in May 1791, and the government promptly
told the Archbishop that his priests would have to go as they had been
so unpopular. He reacted with indignation. The jurisdiction was his
by right. The trouble had been 'the intriguing spirit of the Carmelites'.
The unpopularity of his priests was irrelevant: 'nor does it matter that
50
the Inhabitants are disgusted with my Jurisdiction for in the first place
the Inhabitants have nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Prelates
nor are they obliged to consult them.' In the second place, the
complaints had been manufactured by a few laymen who were afraid
that he, the Archbishop, would call them to account for squandering
church revenues. 21
After some argument it was agreed that the Archbishop could
retain his jurisdiction over Salsette but no exceptions were allowed in
Bombay island. In August it was proclaimed by beat of drum that all
Roman Catholics there should submit to the Carmelite Bishop from
the beginning of September. 22 Soon there were protests and counter-
protests, and some social alignments became clear.
The most effective protest in support of the Archbishop of Goa was
marshalled by Miguel de Lima e Souza. The head of a wealthy
merchant family, he was reputed to be the richest man in town.
Mazagaon had been granted to his ancestors in the sixteenth century
by the Portuguese king, and he still had great possessions there and
much prestige. Many of the Archbishop's opponents said he had
drawn up an eloquent protest against the restoration of the
Carmelites. In a petition from 689 Catholics it was alleged that he
hoped to be rewarded for his loyalty by 'lucrative posts' in the church
for various relatives of his.23 He replied that 'all the principal Catholic
families' believed that the Archbishop of Goa should have spiritual
jurisdiction over Bombay. It was true he had drawn up the petition.
But this was to be expected: 'the principal Catholic families in general
consulted me on such occasions'. But his family had no wish for
church posts: they were all merchants. His opponents, on the other
hand, included 'a number of ignorant people', for example, fishermen,
Kolis (or coolies) and toddy-tappers. 24
This and other protests prompted another change of policy. The
Court of Directors noted in 1793 that 'a very large proportion' of
Bombay's Catholics were opposed to the Carmelites, and these
included 'some of the most respectable'. It seemed wise 'to reconcile
all parties'. The Court therefore ordered that two of the four Catholic
churches should be transferred to the jurisdiction of Goa and two
remain under the Carmelites. The government would settle any
dispute, paying attention to the wishes of the parties concerned, 'which
must always be consulted on religious subjects'. The parishioners
should choose their priests, subject to government approval and
confirmation. 25 This decision opened the way for detailed official
intervention in the affairs of the Catholic churches in Bombay.
51
Miguel de Lima e Souza was quick to express tactful approval of

the new policy.26 But Father Pietro dl\lcantara was less enthusiastic.
He had charge of the Carmelite mission after Bishop Vittorio's death
in 1793, and he foresaw trouble: 'a mission cannot peacefully be
governed by two Pastors'. His conscience, he declared, would not
have allowed him to continue, except that the Archbishop of Goa
could not now be put peacefully in charge of the whole. 27 Some
Catholic laymen, significantly calling themselves 'Deputies', also
protested against the resumption of the Archbishop's jurisdiction even
over two churches. But the government insisted that the Court's
orders must be carried out promptly, and announced a plan: 'the
Carmelites to choose first, the Portuguese the second, the Carmelites
the third, when the fourth will devolve upon the Portuguese: and the
inhabitants will choose their own pastor, subject to our approval and
confirmation,.28
By giving the Carmelites the first choice the government deprived
the Archbishop of Goa's supporters of the fourth. Eleven Deputies
asked for a period of delay pending a reference to the King-in-
Council. 29 But the government insisted that the choice must be made
promptly, and specified 7 February 1794 as the latest date. 30 The
result was that churches at Mahim and Mazagaon went to the
padroado. 31 31 In spite of the government's unfairness, Miguel de
Lima e Souza again said he was very satisfied. He then asked if he
could assign to the public a private chapel of his own near the town
walls, as many of those faithful to Goa lived in the town and would
find it inconvenient to go to Mahim or Mazagaon. 32 The fact was that
the Carmelites had chosen the principal church, which was in the
town. 33
The government agreed, but Father Alcantara protested. Sharing
jurisdiction with the Archbishop of Goa would mean that his flock
might not live in peace. 34 In fact, however, jurisdiction would be
shared in Mahim, where the Carmelites and the Archbishop each had
a church. Alcantara was quickly gaining a reputation for being
difficult. Miguel de Lima e Souza, on the other hand, always seemed
helpful. He quickly announced that Indian priests had been chosen for
the padroado churches. 35 Some time afterwards he reported that he
and his colleagues recommended that Padre Antonio Pinto should be
the Archbishop of Goa's Vicar-General for Bombay.36 All these
appointments were confirmed by the government, and it seemed that
Indian ambitions were receiving some satisfaction under the Arch-
bishop of Goa's regime.
52
But these were the ambitions of an elite. Working-class ideas were

very different. They were soon voiced by some parishioners of the
Gloria church at Mazagaon now under the padroado. They asked the
government to free them from the domination of the Archbishop of
Goa and especially from that of Miguel de Lima e Souza. If not, they
asked to be recompensed for all the money they had contributed over
the years towards church repairs and ornaments. They also asked for a
piece of land on and materials with which they could build a new
church. 3 ? The government only gave them a piece of land, but they
soon erected a pandel, or shelter, there. Describing themselves as
coolies, toddy-tappers and other workers, they then asked Alcantara
for a priest. 38 He cautiously asked the government, but the petitioners
soon lost patience. After three weeks they complained to the
government that nothing had been done. They were then told that
they could choose a priest, whom the government would confirm. They
chose one, and the government confirmed him in office. 39 So Mazagaon
now had two churches - the Gloria church dominated by the elite, led
by Miguel de Lima and Souza, and the new church of Our Lady of the
Rosary, with a working-class membership. Alcantara, and ultimately
Propaganda Fide, had jurisdiction over the Rosary church.
After this division of the parishioners the treasury of the Lay
Fraternity was closed by two locks, one for each group. Soon there
were complaints that the locks had been forced. The secessionists
blamed Miguel de Lima e Souza, and claimed that the ornaments
should be turned over to them, but the government ruled that they
were the property of the Gloria church. 40 A few days later the treasury
was broken into and some ornaments were removed. Two of the
Gloria Church Wardens went to Alcantara to complain. They were
disconcerted when he remarked that the official letter conveying the
government's ruling was merely a statement of the government's
opinion on the question of Gloria church property. He said he had no
objection to sending it to the parishioners of the Rosary church, but
thought that 'it would rest with them to deliver the goods or avail
themselves of some other tribunal'. The Church Wardens were
exasperated by Alcantara's calmness. 'This was no answer at all', they
noted. So four Church Wardens headed by Miguel de Lima e Souza
wrote him a stiff letter: 'We wish to know if your Reverence chuse
[sic] to do or not what the Governor-in-Council has ordered.'41
Alcantara replied on the same day that he was always ready to
obey the government's orders. He had sent the government's letter to
the parishioners the previous evening. 42 Grimly the Church Wardens
53
awaited developments. Nothing happened, and two days later they

wrote again. Alcantara replied with his provoking calmness that they
could ask for the church's 'appurtenances' from 'the Coolies and other
inhabitants of Mazagaon'. He concluded with satisfaction: 'I think I
have done as much as I should do.'43 Miguel de Lima e Souza
appealed to the government. Alcantara, he said, 'wishes to refer us to
the Coolies and other inhabitants of Mazagaon who are the very same
people who broke open the Doors of the said Church and carried
away everything'. He added darkly: 'We beg leave to observe to you
that the Carmelite is at the Bottom of all this business and not to shew
himself he refers us to the Coolies and other people who are in this
Business instigated by him, as they were in all others.'44
Is there a valid point here? Were the lower classes merely
responding to stimuli provided by their superiors, including Alcan-
tara? The point has a more general application. Was social conflict
merely superficial - merely a matter of the manoeuvring of the
educated among themselves? In this particular case it seems unlikely
that Alcantara would have suggested to coolies and others that they
break into a church and make off with its valuables. In general, other
cases of conflict should enable us to assess the existence and force of
popular protest. In the present case, there is much ambiguity.
The Governor-in-Council solemnly told Alcantara that they
expected his 'immediate compliance' with their orders. 45 He replied
that 'with all submission and Zeal' he had sent the government's
orders to the parishioners, urging them to obey, but a difficulty had
arisen. He enclosed a statement from Antonio Doney the fraternity'S
treasurer, and six other members, with their names and marks, as they
were illiterate. They asserted that they had no church property in their
possession. What they had taken was their own property.46 The
government tried again. Alcantara was ordered to return the
ornaments himself. He replied blandly: 'I am at a loss to execute
your respectable orders without making use of compulsory means, for
as much as the required ornaments are not in my power but in that of
the Parishioners at Large, nor can it be supposed that your Honour
would require of me to execute an authority which 1 myself conceived
inconsistent with my character and the functions of my Mission.' His
ecclesiastical authority had been confirmed by the Bombay govern-
ment and also the Court of Directors. If the Governor-in-Council
directed, he would readily surrender his authority to 'the ancient
Prelate' - in other words the Archbishop of Goa. 47 Privately he knew
this would be contrary to official policy.
54
The Governor-in-Council resolved lamely that as the parishioners

had stated that the 'appurtenances' were their private property there
was nothing to be done. 48 It would be wrong to interfere with private
property. So the coolies, fishermen and toddy-tappers of Mazagaon
had won the day, helped by the tactful detachment of the Vicar
Apostolic.
The Gloria church was again the scene of conflict when an
energetic and reforming Archbishop took over in Goa in 1812. 49 He
promptly dismissed the Vicar-General for Bombay, who was also
parish priest of Salva~ao, Mahim. In addition, he dismissed the parish
priest of the Gloria church, Mazagaon, Padre Donato de Lacerda. In
his stead, Padre Francesco Parras was appointed Vicar-General and
parish priest of the Gloria church. But there were demands from
parishioners that Padre Donato should stay. The Archbishop then
issued a pastoral letter to the effect that parish priests who did not
apply for fresh faculties, or spiritual authority, from the new Vicar-
General would be suspended. Padre Donato then withdrew under
protest, various parishioners complained, and the Governor-in-
Council took umbrage. Donato seemed popular, and the government
had confirmed his appointment. But the Archbishop had recalled him
without assigning any reason, and without consulting either the
government or the parishioners. 50 The Archbishop professed
dignified surprise. It was for him alone to appoint priests. He had
not consulted the government or the parishioners because the faults
of priests were not to be discussed by mere laymen. This was the
accepted procedure of the Roman Catholic church, and the
government, he added, was committed to protecting the Roman
Catholic religion, 'not the Catholic religion established by the French
during the revolution,.51
Perhaps he had a point. There was some hurried consultation with
the supreme government in Calcutta. The 1661 marriage treaty with
Portugal had guaranteed 'the free exercise of the Roman Catholic
religion' in Bombay. The Governor-General-in-Council resolved that
this meant that the Roman Catholics there were 'entitled in the fullest
sense of the term to the free and uncontrolled exercise of their
Religion equally with respect to matters of spiritual jurisdiction as to
rites and modes of worship, Government only retaining the acknowl-
edged power of confirming clerical appointments recommended by
the voice of the people'. This power of confirmation related only to
questions of 'political necessity'. The government did not have to
confirm appointments made by the Archbishop which did not accord
55
with the wishes of parishioners. 52 So far so good. But the Archbishop

did not have to grant faculties to priests of whom he did not approve
even though they had been chosen by the parishioners and confirmed
by the government.
The controversy continued, and soon involved social clashes. Padre
Donato was favoured by the elite. He had been appointed as a result
of the influence of Miguel de Lima e Souza. Miguel was now dead, but
his nephew Nicolao de Lima e Souza interceded on behalf of Donato.
Various parishioners, too, had come to like him. The Archbishop was
perplexed by the opposition to his decision to remove him. 'Nicolao is
angry and persists in supporting him', he noted in mild surprise. 53
Eight church wardens spoke up in support of the Archbishop's
authority. They included a rich man, Rosario de Quadros. This group
saw no objection to the appointment of Padre Parras, the Arch-
bishop's nominee. Like Donato, Parras belonged to the Goanese elite.
But a larger group wanted a local man, and told the government they
would prefer either of two priests, whom they named, rather than
Parras. In the words of the church wardens this group was organised
by 'some Individuals of inferior rank'. 54 Among them was Manoel de
Misquita, a tailor, who was often outspoken on church affairs. He and
his supporters asked the government to order Parras, in his capacity as
Vicar-General, to give faculties to one of their candidates. 55 But if
such an order had been given Parras could hardly have obeyed it
without risking dismissal by the Archbishop. In the event the
government replied that it did not recognise Parras as Vicar-General
and so could not order him to do any such thing. 56 Meanwhile the
church had no priest.
Then the Archbishop appealed to the Governor-General against the
Bombay government's refusal to let him exercise his authority in
Bombay through his Vicar-General. But Minto told him blandly that
since the British had guaranteed the free exercise of the Roman
Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Bombay they could not admit
his interference, which would 'have the effect of controlling a liberty
so solemnly guaranteed'. 57 The dilemma seemed insoluble. In the end
the parishioners reluctantly offered to elect Parras for three months in
the first instance, but he refused to come on such terms. Finally they
elected him unconditionally, and the government confirmed him in
office, claiming to the Court of Directors that this solution was
evidence of the success of their policy.58 In fact the Archbishop had his
way, in spite of the government's opposition, as well as the opposition
of most of the parishioners.
56
There was another conflict with similar social alignments in the

Salva~ao church, Mahim. Padre Joao de Souza e Silva duly applied to
Padre Parras to renew his faculties. Parras renewed them, but only for
three months. When Padre Joao applied again three months later his
faculties were renewed for another three months. After that he
declined to apply again, and his faculties lapsed. He announced this
from the pulpit and explained that he could no longer officiate as
parish priest. Parras was disconcerted by this move, which was
followed by loud complaints from parishioners, and he wrote hastily
to Joao that he could continue as priest. But Joao ignored him, and
some parishioners petitioned the government to transfer the church to
the rival jurisdiction of Bishop Alcantara.
A counter-petition was then produced in favour of Goa. Rosario de
Quadros, Caetano Barretto and other upper-class signatories claimed
that Alcantara's supporters included 'Ignorant People,.59 The govern-
ment sent the Junior Magistrate of Police, James Erskine, to hold an
enquiry. A public meeting was held, and Erskine noted with
satisfaction that it was 'very numerously attended,.60 Padre Joao
was the only candidate, and 365 votes were cast in favour of his
continuing as priest, but under Alcantara. Only ten votes were cast in
favour of his remaining under Goa, and objections were raised against
two of the richest members of the minority - Nicolao de Lima e Souza
and CaetanQ Barretto - on the ground that they were not members of
the Salva~ao church. A similar objection could have been made
against Rosario de Quadros.
What was clear was that the lower-class Catholics not only
resented the domination of the rich but were prepared to express their
resentment. And these church quarrels provided both the motive and
the opportunity for them to do so. The Salva~ao church at Mahim
was accordingly transferred to Bishop Alcantara's jurisdiction.
Further conflicts reveal the same social tensions, and Manoel de
Misquita appears again in a leading role. This time he was involved in
the case of Egidio Mariano de Silva, clerk to the Gloria church,
Mazagaon, who had been dismissed by Padre Parras. Some
parishioners, led by Manoel de Misquita, protested to the govern-
ment. Egidio, they claimed, 'though poor but [sic] is an honest good
man,.61 However, the Church Wardens supported Padre Parras. They
said that Manoel de Misquita was merely 'a tailor and an illiterate
and idiot person, yet full of pride and vanity'. He was also Egidio's
uncle. Of the others who supported Egidio, one was a sail-maker and
two were low-caste Kolis (coolies). As for Egidio himself, he had been
57
tactless enough to express his disapproval of 'any defect which

occurred in music or other ceremonies of the Church by coughing or
otherwise'. He had taken to behaving like this after the arrival of
Padre Parras. 62
Erskine, the Magistrate, was instructed to investigate. He reported
that Egidio had discharged his duties as clerk for many years 'in a way
creditable to himself, and to the satisfaction of the Vicar and
Parishioners'. Nevertheless, there was no doubt that when Padre
Parras celebrated Mass Egidio was guilty of 'improper behaviour in
Church in the face of the congregation by humming, coughing and
other indecent modes of showing his dislike at any particular part of
the service which did not meet with his approbation'. When Erskine
pursued his enquiries he found that Egidio's supporters were a small
minority, and he recommended that no action be taken by the
government. 63 This avoided a clash with the Archbishop.
The Archbishop'S influence extended beyond Bombay, to the
government's irritation. He suspended three priests in Salsette, two
for drunkenness and one for solemnising a marriage between a
Protestant and his Catholic mistress without seeking a dispensation. 64
One of the priests complained to the Magistrate of Thana, and the
Archbishop'S Vicar-General was solemnly told by the government that
he had no right to suspend priests merely because the Archbishop told
him to do so. Instead, the Governor-in-Council ruled that the
complaints of priestly misconduct should be dealt with by the Judge
and Magistrate. 65 This might seem a startling decision, but in 1819 the
Governor-in-Council reaffirmed this policy with a slight amendment to
the effect that the Magistrate of Thana was the proper authority to
superintend the Roman Catholic clergy of the Northern Konkan. 66
Such rulings made little difference. In 1820 the Judge and
Magistrate recognised that the Archbishop of Goa was still influential.
One reason was that priests had to be trained in the colleges of Goa
and were then ordained by him. If the Bombay government were to
finance a local seminary this would counteract the Archbishop of
Goa's influence. The Judge and Magistrate also suggested that if
priests were paid a modest stipend they would be more responsive to
the government's wishes. The government promptly asked for
estimates. A cost of 300 rupees a month was proposed for the
seminary and 40 rupees a month for each pupil. The approval of the
Court of Directors was sought. 67
But the notion of paying for the training of Popish priests was
difficult to swallow in London. The Court took eight years to reply.
58
Meanwhile, Alcantara ventured the opinion that 150 rupees a month

would be enough for a seminary. Finally, in 1828, in a despatch which
James Mill seems to have drafted, the Court reluctantly conceded that
the Bombay government could spend 150 rupees a month on a
seminary and also pay small stipends to Catholic priests in places
where there was a danger that Christians might otherwise lapse into
'heathenism'. In the territories recently acquired from the Peshwa, 30
rupees a month could be paid. 68
Such concessions were peculiar to the Bombay Presidency, and
were supported by various historical arguments. But as in other areas
under British rule Roman Catholic priests were also used as chaplains
for British troops, many of whom were Irish Roman Catholics. The
government thought such priests ought to speak fluent English, and
when Bishop Prendergast arrived in Bombay in 1828 on his way from
Kerala, Alcantara made use of him as a military chaplain. He had
dreaded Prendergast's arrival, fearing a repetition of the scandals
associated with his time in Kerala, but soon he was appealing to
Propaganda Fide to let him stay in Bombay as he was so helpful to
Catholic soldiers. Eventually, the Archbishop of Goa's Vicar-General,
together with a number of priests, submitted a memorial to the Pope
in criticism of the Carmelites, and especially of Prendergast. Apart
from acting as a military chaplain, they said, he spent his time reading
newspapers, looking at women who passed by, and talking of war and
how to put the whole of Asia under British rule. The memorialists also
criticised Alcantara's coadjutor, Bishop Luigi, whose family name was
Fortini. 69 They said people laughed when he was made a Bishop,
except for those who thought the only qualification for high office was
to be a Carmelite and to have a white skin?O In spite of Alcantara's
pleas Propaganda now insisted that Prendergast leave India. 71
However, Goa's influence in the Bombay Presidency was soon
undermined by the Vatican's decision in 1838 to reduce the area
subject to the padroado. Alcantara was told to extend his authority to
Salsette. The adjoining area of Bombay island was not mentioned,
perhaps in deference to the British, whose policy had left the Gloria
church in Mazagaon under the Archbishop of Goa.72 When Alcantara
asked for official approval of the extension of his jurisdiction to
Salsette he was told that he could go ahead. He was also told that
government policy was unchanged - to confirm appointments
'recommended by the voice of the people'. 73 This policy, with its
Protestant and democratic undertones, was likely to encourage
disputes both among groups of Catholics and also between the rival
59
jurisdictions of Propaganda Fide and Goa. In an official minute the

Governor commented that the change of Papal policy meant that the
influence of Goa could now be eliminated. 74
But this was not so easy. An early principle of the padroado was
that Papal decrees would only be valid after they had been approved
by the Portuguese monarchy. Was the new decree invalid for want of
Portuguese approval? Padre Soares soon asserted that it was. He had
an authoritative position, for besides being parish priest of the Gloria
church he was also the Archbishop of Goa's Vicar-General for the
North. He pointed out that Alcantara himself had sworn obedience to
the Archbishop of Goa in May 1789. Five other priests signed a letter
in support of Padre Soares. 75 The government replied that it would
respect the voice of the people. But who were the people? Alcantara
soon found his seminary deserted. The rector and students had left to
set up a rival establishment under Goa. They asked the government to
transfer its subsidy to them, but the government refused. Alcantara's
customary air of calm now deserted him: these events 'hurt my
feelings', he said. But he announced that his seminary would soon
reopen to admit new students. 76
The new policy also produced stresses in Salsette. Fortini, who
succeeded Alcantara as Vicar Apostolic on the latter's death in 1840,
produced petitions from Catholics in the three padroado churches of
Bandra, Mane and Varsova, asking for priests under his jurisdiction.
Langford, the Collector and Magistrate, reported indignantly that the
existing priests were 'men of unexceptionable character', looking after
the local schools and occupied in other good works. He described the
petitions as 'extraordinary': they were signed only by persons 'in the
lowest grade of society'. He understood that Fortini's agents had held
meetings, 'distributed Liquor and Presents among the lower classes',
and so obtained their support for the petitions. He said he could
identify three of Fortini's agents - Antonio Albuquerque, Pascoal de
Mello and 'one Murzello'. 77 He told Fortini he thought the petitions
had been 'got up in the most improper manner and to have been only
signed by the lowest of the community'. He added: 'It does not appear
to me that the majority of the Parishioners or any of the higher orders
in these villages express any wish to change their pastors, and
therefore any proceedings on your part are uncalled for.'78
Fortini reacted with spirit. He told Langford that he was quite
mistaken: 'unless there existed such intention on the part of the major
part of the Parishioners the Petition so numerously signed in each
Parish could not have been presented to me, and moreover as the
60
Parishioners are not under my jurisdiction I could not distinguish their

respectability nor does my spiritual duty call for [me] to make any
such reflection on their station in life'. 79 Langford's views became
known, and an equally spirited rebuff was devised by Antonio
Albuquerque and Pascoal de Mello. They wrote from Bandra that
they had no complaints about the priest there but merely wanted a
transfer of jurisdiction. they claimed they were in the majority but a
small group controlled parish funds. Langford had said their petition
had only been signed by 'the lowest persons' of Bandra, and that the
more 'respectable' were satisfied with things as they were. True, they
themselves were of Fisher families, but they had been educated in the
local Catholic school and could find defects in the church accounts as
well as anyone else. The new Papal policy made a change possible. 80
But the government was unmoved. Langford also complained that
one of Fortini's priests at Mahim had baptised two children of low-
caste families under Goa's jurisdiction. He told Fortini to prevent such
things or else he would report it to the government. 81 The priest
himself said he would continue to baptise anyone who asked, and
Fortini supported him. 82 Again the conflict of jurisdictions revealed
similar social alignments - the elite preferring Goa and the low castes
preferring the Vicar Apostolic and the Carmelites. Indian priests had
better prospects under Goa, but they were of high-caste or Eurasian
families, and low castes in the Bombay area showed no particular
sympathy for them.
Fortini saw the acting Governor, complained about Langford's
arrogance and had a friendly reception. 83 But he was soon involved in
controversy with his Vicar-General, Father Michael Antony.84 The
case was embarrassing. Michael Antony, a fellow Italian Carmelite,
was also parish priest of the Esperan~a church, where he had married
a couple under age without their parents' consent. The bridegroom
belonged to the rich and influential Lima e Souza family, traditionally
loyal to the padroado, and it was said that he had only approached
Fortini's Vicar-General because the Goanese authorities forbade the
marriage. The family had taken the matter to the Supreme Court,
which also prohibited the marriage. Father Michael Antony told the
Court that he had known the couple for several years and thought
them suited. 85
Such reasoning did him no good, and he was imprisoned for six
months. Some Catholics complained that it was not the first time he
had married people in dubious circumstances. They mentioned the
marriage of Eduardo Souza and Julia Veronica, 'a European woman
61
who is well known as having come out in the disguise of a sailor'.

They also mentioned the marriage of the daughter of Domingo da
Costa, Head Clerk in the office of the Collector of Thana, with a
young man with whom she had eloped. 86 Such things worried the
respectable, although Michael Antony enjoyed much lower-class
support.
Fortini himself thought the time had come to get rid of such an
embarrassing priest. He went to see Michael Antony in prison and
told him how awkward it was that Esperan~a had lost its vicar. He
hoped this would prompt Michael Antony to offer to resign, but
Michael Antony seemed unwilling to resign. Fortini thought of
ordering him to go, but decided against it because he felt Michael
Antony would not obey.87 Curiously, Fortini was much less resolute in
dealing with priests than with government officials. When Michael
Antony emerged from prison Fortini noted with disapproval that the
experience had not inclined him towards a more austere style of life.
He was actually wearing silk stockings - hardly suitable for a
Discalced, or Shoeless, Carmelite, Fortini commented sourly. They
were often called Barefooted Carmelites, but although in fact they
wore sandals the term did imply a certain austerity.
Fortini then nerved himself to suggest that Michael Antony should
leave Bombay, but Michael Antony replied that the matter should be
referred to the Father-General in Rome. These discussions soon
became public knowledge, and Fortini received a joint request from
the lower classes ('il popolo inveriore') in Michael Antony's church,
together with a few of the leading members, to the effect that Michael
Antony should not be sent away. Fortini then decided that it was
prudent to order him to stay - provided that he would obey, Fortini
explained cautiously to Propaganda Fide. 88
Fortini was coming to think he needed help. Although he was only
46 years old he felt more like 80, he told Propaganda Fide. He needed
glasses and he had lost some teeth. All this was because he had to
work so hard, he said. So he asked for a Coadjutor Bishop -
preferably someone with experience of the world. 89 After various
enquiries the authorities chose Father William Whelan, Carmelite
Vice-Provincial in Ireland. 90 He was duly made a Bishop in partibus,
and arrived in Bombay in 1843. Fortini was at first delighted to have
such a helper with a knowledge of the world. 91 Only later did he
discover how quick Whelan had been to make use of his knowledge of
the world. He had first gone to France, where he intercepted the grant
that the Association for the Propagation of the Faith was making to
62
the Bombay mission for the years 1842 and 1843. Whelan used the
money for the costs of his journey and other unexplained purposes.
Soon he was complaining to Propaganda about the incompetence of
poor Monsignor Fortini and his Vicar-General Father Michael
Antony. Then he began to press for Michael Antony's departure.
Unexpectedly, Michael Antony asked for leave to go. Characteristi-
cally, he embarked without waiting for a reply from Rome. This
aroused great resentment in the parish. There was a demonstration of
four to five hundred of the Fisher caste, who threatened to leave the
Faith. However, in less than a fortnight the ship was forced back into
port by bad weather. When Michael Antony landed he found that the
Father-General had instructed that he should stay in Bombay.92 So he
returned to his loyal parishioners.
Then Fortini had a bitter argument with Whelan about the
intercepted grant from the Association for the Propagation of the
Faith. Whelan asked the Treasurer to send all future grants to him
because of Fortini's vagueness while Fortini told the Treasurer to send
all future grants to him personally.93 Their letters were carefully
compared in the offices of the Association, which was a laymen's
organisation and worked with crisp efficiency. Eventually, the
President briskly referred the dispute to Rome. 94 The Cardinal Prefect
of Propaganda Fide replied smoothly that the grants should of course
be sent to Bishop Fortini, who was worthy of all trust. 95 He also told
Whelan that he was supposed to be helping Fortini, not making things
more difficult for him. 96
But national differences increased the tension between them. When
the British government asked for Catholic chaplains to serve with the
troops campaigning in Sind, there were none to send, and Whelan
complained of Fortini's weakness. 97 In fact, it had always been
difficult to find British priests for India, but Fortini did nothing to
encourage them. Quite the contrary. He was apt to warn Rome of the
disadvantages of British priests as compared with Italians. British
priests, he would say, were useful for British Catholics but they did
little for Indians, from whom they kept their distance. 98
Whelan won favour in British eyes when he cared for British
soldiers dying of cholera on their return from Sind. People said he
attended them night and day. In recognition of his efforts the
government awarded him a stipend of 200 rupees a month, later
raised to 400 rupees. 99 Fortini noted sombrely that Whelan seemed in
high favour: sometimes he was invited to dine with the governor.
Fortini began to feel even more weak and troubled in spirit, and he
63
asked Propaganda Fide to let him retire. 100 This request was not
granted. Such requests seldom were. But Fortini and Whelan joined
together to disapprove of the doings of the new Archbishop of Goa.
Archbishop Jose Maria Silva Torres arrived in Bombay in January
1844, on his way to Goa. He was greeted by cheering crowds and was
taken in triumph from the harbour to the Gloria church with Padre
Mariano Soares, his Vicar-General. He was also received with great
enthusiasm in Salsette. According to Whelan the joy (l'allegria) of the
people was impossible to describe. There were shouts of 'Victory over
the Italians' ('Vittoria sopra gli Italiani!'), and the crowd also called
for victory over Bishop Fortini and Father Michael Antony. Fortini
himself was also astonished by the 'fermentation' ('fermentazione')
which the Archbishop's arrival aroused in people. The Archbishop
himself duly thanked the Bombay government for allowing him to
come to Bombay and Sal sette and emphasised his claim to jurisdiction
over the churches which had been built and endowed with the help of
Portuguese resources.
From his point of view, any Papal documents that abrogated this
jurisdiction were null and void as they had not received the royal
validation. To justify his position he wrote a letter of immense length
to the Pope, but it was not well received. Various criticisms were made
against him. During his period of office in Goa he ordained a large
number of priests. It was said that there were too many of them and
that they were ill-equipped for their duties - and so on. 101 However,
there was some significance in the explosion of anti-Italian feeling
which his visit provoked in Bombay and Salsette. Contrary to the
Bombay government's hopes, emotional ties with Goa were still
strong among its subjects. Michael Antony, a particular target for
their hostility, had made himself unpopular with upper-class
Catholics. The lower classes were those who preferred Italian priests.
Propaganda Fide welcomed the rapprochement between Fortini
and Whelan, but Whelan soon had to leave Bombay because of liver
trouble. He went back to Ireland in 1846, while Fortini's nationalistic
difficulties continued. Some laymen organised a pressure group called
the 'Catholic Institute', similar to those being organised in England at
about the same time. Their first project was an orphanage. Instead of
welcoming this initiative and using it for fund-raising, Fortini treated
the leaders with suspicion as 'turbulent', and complained to Rome
that they wanted to undermine the obedience of the Catholic people.
At the same time, he agreed to preside over the Institute. He also
wrote to the Archbishop of Dublin asking for teachers, but because of
64
his suspicions of Whelan he wrote in secrecy.l02 Yet Whelan would

have supported such a project with great enthusiasm.
Soon enough Fortini's own commitment to the project was
vigorously questioned. Early in 1848 some English-speaking Catholics
headed by an army officer sent a memorial to the Pope complaining
that Fortini had been 'insincere' in saying he welcomed the idea. The
Italian Carmelites, they added, had never attended to the needs of
'poor Catholic soldiers'. The underlying intention had always been
that many if not most of the orphans would have been soldiers'
children. Instead of building an orphanage Fortini had squandered
'thousands of Catholic money' on 'private dwellings'. 1 03 One such
dwelling was a new house for the bishop, and there had also been
some construction of domestic and commercial property for renting.
Two days after the memorial had been sent to Rome Fortini died.
Father Michael Antony as Vicar-General took over the administration
and received Fortini's last wishes. He had been particularly anxious
that the work of decorating a private Carmelite chapel should be
continued, and he had left some money in Michael Antony's hands for
the purpose. This was much criticised by the turbulent laymen of the
Catholic Institute. They quickly applied to the Ecclesiastical Registrar,
a government official, for the possessions held by Fortini as Vicar
Apostolic to be taken into custody for safe keeping. 104 Meanwhile,
Whelan wrote to Propaganda that a British Bishop should replace
Fortini. lOs According to the Archbishop of Dublin, Whelan himself
now seemed much fitter, though he was hardly in the best of health. If
Rome wanted him back in Bombay he could certainly return,106 so
back he went.
Meanwhile, the energetic Father Michael Antony speedily involved
himself in difficulties. Some were matters of racial feeling and others
reflected the same social tensions previously shown among Bombay's
Catholics. Bishop Fortini had used Salva~ao, Mahim, as his church,
instead of Esperanc;a, which was bigger and more central. This had
been one of Whelan's criticisms of Fortini's style as a Bishop. After
Fortini's death Michael Antony appointed another Italian, Father
Maurizio, to Salvac;ao. It never occurred to him to consult the
parishioners: this was never the Roman style.
So some of them promptly complained to the government. They
were told that the government would confirm in office the priest
chosen by the majority, 'if otherwise unexceptionable' .107 Michael
Antony therefore told the church wardens to arrange a meeting. An
indication of the extent to which feelings had been aroused was that
65
about four hundred people came. But Michael Antony had hoped for
a small meeting which he could dominate, and he refused to appear.
After waiting about two hours people went away, and the Church
Wardens expressed their indignation: 'Most of us are cultivators
whose time is of great value to us.' They locked the church and
handed the keys to the sacristan, telling him to open it only to 'Native
Clergymen'. No Italian priests were to be admitted. l08
This prompted government intervention. The Senior Magistrate
was ordered to go to the Salva~ao church, ascertain the majority view
and ensure that the priest chosen was 'of good repute'. He went to
Mahim and organised an election. Father Maurizio lost heavily,
polling only 103 votes against 214 for the Indian candidate, Padre
Braz Fernandes. An East Indian, or Eurasian, born in Bandra and
trained in Goa, Braz Fernandes had been Fortini's curate at Salva~ao.
The Senior Magistrate reported with satisfaction that the votes were
taken 'fairly and openly' and 'without the least apparent ill-feeling'.
He also commented that 'with one or two exceptions' those who
voted for Braz Fernandes were 'the respectable and intelligent
Parishioners'. In the language of the time, 'intelligent' meant merely
'educated', for he added that those who voted for Father Maurizio
were 'poor cultivators and Fishermen'. He asked if there were any
objections to the appointment of Braz Fernandes, and no one spoke.
On this evidence he reported that there was 'abundant proof' that
Padre Braz was 'a man of good repute,.109
Significantly, the Church Wardens then asked for official confirma-
tion of the appointment as soon as possible as they were 'fearful of the
machinations of the Italian Friars, whose adherents the Fishermen and
Toddy drawers will, it is to be feared from their intemperate habits
provoke breaches of the peace' .110 When the government told Father
Michael Antony that Padre Braz had been confirmed as priest-elect in
accordance with the popular vote and should therefore be inducted,
Father Michael retorted that he should have been consulted before-
hand, but he accepted the situation, and Padre Braz Fernandes became
priest of Salva~aoY 1
As soon as Bishop Whelan returned to Bombay in November 1848
he insisted on changes that aroused fresh and revealing controversies.
First he replaced Father Michael Antony as Vicar-General by Father
Patrick Sheehan, an Irish priest who had come with him to Bombay.
He also appointed an additional Vicar-General for Indians - Padre
Joseph de Mello, an East Indian born in Mahim and trained at the
Bombay seminary. Then he made it known that Michael Antony
66
would have to leave Esperanc;:a, and he recalled the policy laid down
by Propaganda Fide as long ago as 1787 that parish priests should
preferably be nationals of the country. The Church Wardens protested
against the removal of Father Michael, but Whelan issued a Pastoral
Letter stating that he would appoint an Indian priest, Padre Gabriel
d'Oliveira. This was a shrewd move, but it prompted a formal letter
of protest from the Church Wardens. The result was a lively church
meeting. As A.K. Perera, one of the Church Wardens, was reading
their letter of protest, Patrick Kelly, one of Whelan's supporters,
snatched it from his hand and tore it up. Then 'a female', in the words
of the minutes, 'struck Mr A.K. Perera a blow in the back'. It was,
therefore, resolved to close the church and rely on the government to
decide the issue: otherwise 'the few Europeans attending at our church
will eventually provoke a breach of the peace'.H 2
When Whelan heard that the Church Wardens were asking for
official intervention he quickly wrote to the government asserting his
right as Bishop to appoint a priest at Esperanc;:a. These developments
aroused some perplexity in government circles. Protestant-style
intervention to establish the democratic right of parishioners to
choose their own priest seemed appropriate when the Bishop was
Italian, but less so when Bishop Whelan was involved. The
government concluded that intervention should be avoided if possible,
but that in the last resort the policy of accepting the views of the
majority would have to be followed. In the end it was agreed to refer
the matter to the Senior Magistrate, who would find out whether the
majority wanted Michael Antony to remain. 113 But Michael Antony,
impulsive as ever, unexpectedly resigned and asked permission to
leave Bombay. Whelan gladly consented. But before Michael Antony
left there was a stormy protest meeting, which he attended, and at
which he handed over the keys of the church and presbytery to the
Church Wardens, who refused to let Whelan have them. Michael
Antony then left speedily for Mangalore, while Whelan broke open
the church doors. In place of Michael Antony he appointed Padre
Gabriel d'Oliveira. A few weeks later Whelan enlisted the help of a
police constable, broke open the doors of the presbytery, and was
promptly prosecuted for trespass by the Church Wardens. 114
Several weeks later J.G. Lumsden, the Secretary to the Bombay
Government, revealed that he had never implemented the decision to
send the Senior Magistrate to ascertain the views of the majority. He
explained blandly that he thought the controversy would die down
after Father Michael Antony's departure, and he added that Bishop
67
Whelan's claim to appoint priests of his own choice could never be

upheld if the government intervened, however orthodox it might be
from a Roman Catholic viewpoint. The best course seemed to be to
defer a decision pending a reference to the Court of Directors.
Lumsden was an experienced civil servant, and his expedient for
avoiding any decisive action was welcomed by Lord Falkland, the
Governor, and the other members of his Council. 115
But Lumsden was mistaken in thinking that controversy would die
away. Embarrassing publicity was soon given to Whelan's doings. In
the British Indian Gentleman's Gazette and Bombay Daily Advertiser,
'A Lover of Justice' commented sarcastically on Whelan's pastoral
letter, which had been read from the pulpit 'in an inaudible voice by
our worthy prelate'. The lover of justice wanted more democracy in
the church. Whelan's pastoral implied that 'the church was a private
property of the Bishop; and as such placed at his immediate disposal,
without the consent of the wardens or the liberal parishioners (by
whom the church is maintained) being accorded to the removal of the
present vicar'. 116 Padre de Mello and 21 other people with Portuguese
names promptly replied that they hoped Whelan would be 'severe' in
asserting his rights. 117 However these were in a small minority.
Demands for more lay participation in church affairs were clearly
voiced at a general meeting attended by some 300 parishioners. The
draft of a trust deed was discussed: this provided for lay control of
church finance and property, and it attracted majority support. John
Hampton, one of Whelan's supporters, asked in protest if the Bishop
was 'subject to the people'. John de Mello replied that in temporal
matters he 'certainly depended on the people, for the people
supported him and the clergy'. Miguel de Mello spoke at length on
behalf of the rights of the majority, but all the time, according to the
minutes, Hampton and Patrick Kelly, another of Whelan's supporters,
'were speaking in a loud tone with each other and making crude
remarks on persons and proceedings'. They were called to order, but
the irascible Mr Kelly continued to interrupt the meeting. In the end,
'in view of Mr Kelly's known quarrelsome disposition', the police
were called and he was removed. 118 In general, the small minority of
English and Irish supported Whelan, together with some East Indians.
But most of the East Indian and Indian middle class supported the
idea of greater lay participation. As for the Indian working class, they
had no voice in this meeting.
Whelan offended other people by instituting legal proceedings to
gain control of the funds taken over by the Ecclesiastical Registrar at
68
the insistence of the Catholic Institute. His determination to assert his

episcopal authority would have been viewed with sympathy in Rome.
But disquieting reports were soon arriving there. Father Sheehan, his
Vicar-General, commented on the Bishop's irritability, perhaps the
result of his fondness for brandy and water, which he seemed to be
drinking constantly, night and day.119 From Mangalore, where
Michael Antony had taken refuge, Bishop Bernardino di S. Agnese
sent a series of complaints to Rome against Whelan, the Carmelites'
false brother as he described him. Indiscreetly, he also called Whelan
'Monsignor Villano'. Inspired by nationalism Whelan was ruining the
Bombay mission. He wanted to replace all the Italians by Irish priests
for British congregations and by Indian priests for Indian congrega-
tions. 120 From Kerala, Archbishop Ludovico told Propaganda Fide
that Irish priests were of little use to Indian Catholics, who tended to
look at them as lords and masters (padrone), although they were
excellent enough in their dealings with Irish Catholics. Italian priests,
on the other hand, would learn the local languages and adapt
themselves to Indian ways.121 The notion that Whelan disliked Italian
priests seemed to be confirmed when he told two newly arrived Italian
Carmelites that he had nothing for them to do in Bombay and sent
them on to Malabar. This was usurping the authority of Propaganda
Fide, and he was duly rebuked. 122
In fact the Carmelite mission in Kerala had its share of difficulties
(see Chapter III). In Rome the Carmelite Father-General had some
anxious discussions with Cardinal Barnabo, the Secretary of
Propaganda Fide. But the outcome seemed reassuring. The Father-
General wrote to Michael Antony with some relief that the Cardinal
'truly loves us much', and that Italian Carmelites would remain in
the Bombay mission. A file was prepared, and Barnabo took it to
Gaeta, to confer with Pope Pius IX, still exiled from Rome as a result
of the disturbances of 1848. But he found the Pope determined that
the general question of the future of Carmelite missions in India
should be seriously considered. It was decided to recall Whelan from
Bombay: he was told that his opinion on such matters was needed in
Rome. 123
But Whelan had one more opportunity to vex the Italian
Carmelites. Before the Bishop left Bombay Michael Antony returned
from Mangalore bringing with him Archbishop Ludovico, Bishop
Bernardino di S. Agnese and Father Agostino, another Italian
Carmelite. They said they had come to restore peace to the Bombay
mission, but Whelan refused to let them say Mass in the churches
69
under his jurisdiction. So they merely listened to various complaints

against Whelan and solemnly reported them to Rome. Ludovico, for
example, complained that Whelan's lifestyle was luxurious, and that
he had been present at ceremonies during which Hindu dancing girls
had performed. 124 However, Propaganda Fide decided to entrust the
Bombay mission to someone without commitments to either side, and
Bishop Hartmann, a Swiss-German Capuchin, was summoned from
Patna.
Unfortunately, Hartmann thought his first duty was to assert his
authority as a Bishop, and he was soon involved in difficulties. He
held a meeting at Esperan~a and persuaded the Wardens to
withdraw their suit, which he privately thought they were bound
to win. If they had won he would have had to accept Michael
Antony as priest there. In fact, there were earnest demands at the
meeting for Michael Antony's appointment, but Hartmann merely
said he would do what was best. Privately he noted that he did not
want it to be thought that he was yielding to the people's wishes. He
decided to remove Padre Gabriel d'Oliveira on the ground that he
seemed negligent and that some parishioners - no doubt the Fishers
- found his manner insulting. He offered d'Oliveira Karachi or the
Rosary Church at Mazagaon, and he chose Mazagaon. Then
Hartmann proposed to appoint another Italian, Father Maurizio,
to Esperan<;a, but he was warned that there would be a 'revolution'
unless Michael Antony came back. So he appointed him after all. 125
Some parishioners said they thought 'the old rule of excluding our
native clergymen from these offices is begun anew', and reminded
him of Propaganda's ruling that Indian priests should be appointed
to parishes rather than foreign missionaries. They also reminded him
that the government paid an annual subsidy towards the cost of
training Indian priests. 126
Awkwardly Hartmann tried to justify himself to the government.
'The petitioners asked me if any of the native clergy is qualified? I
answered them, who would stand an examination with Reverend
Miguel Antonio?' He added that he deplored such talk: 'The
expression "Foreigners" in the mouth of Roman Catholics sounds
very badly. Those who belong to the same persuasion in ecclesiastical
and religious matters are not foreigners, though of different nations.'
But in those days ideas of the international character of the Catholic
Church were more likely to be acceptable to Rome than to a British
government. Hartmann also tried another argument. Indian priests
could hardly complain in Bombay: 'They are thirty against five
70
foreigners. d27 In fact, the same could have been said of Kerala. The
main principle laid down by Propaganda Fide was not affected: Indian
priests should be appointed to parishes rather than foreign mis-
SlOnanes.
Hartmann's basic assumption was eventually revealed. It was
racial: 'Experience has taught me that the European clergy is more
steady, more active and learned than the native, even when some
of them are educated under the most able Professors in Europe.' So
much for Propaganda Fide's policy of educating promising Indians
at its College in Rome. Hartmann also argued that Europeans who
were not British were particularly valuable. 'Government may
always rely on these foreigners ... Because they, belonging neither
to native nor to British, have no political interest in supporting
factions.' Padre Gabriel d'Oliveira, on the other hand, thought
that the Italian Carmelites had joined with the Fishers to oppose
Indian priests and press for Michael Antony's a ppointment. 128
Why the Fishers should have disliked Indian priests he did not
explain. But the racial argument was developed by another Indian
priest, Padre Duarte, who had gone to Rome to support Bishop
Whelan's case. Duarte told Propaganda Fide that he and other
Indian priests did not have any prospects under Bishop Fortini.
Indian priests had then been treated as 'servants and slaves' «servi
e schiavi'). Fortini had refused to pay Indian priests the authorised
Mass stipend of one rupee on the ground that they were
incompetent. But 'in reality it was we who bore the burden and
heat of the day' «in realta eravamo noi che portammo il pondus
diei et aestus'). Bishop Whelan, on the other hand, treated Indian
priests fairly and had no racial prejudice, and the British - that is,
Irish - priests who came with him behaved towards them like
brothers. 129
Indian priests welcomed Bishop Hartmann's decision to confirm
Padre de Mello in office as Vicar-General. Soon Padre de Mello
invited Hartmann to celebrate Mass in his church, St Michael's,
Mahim. Unfortunately, when Bishop Hartmann was meeting the
parishioners, Padre de Mello's brother suddenly produced an address
in English which he read out, to the effect that Michael Antony should
leave Bombay. Hartmann thought this improper on the part of a
layman.130 There were also protests against Michael Antony's
appointment from parishioners of Salvac;ao, Mahim, and the Rosary
Church, Mazagaon. Unwisely, Hartmann immediately took offence
and demanded that the parishioners apologise. He told the two
71
priests, Padre Braz Fernandes and Padre Gabriel d'Oliveira that it was
their duty to ensure that apologies were forthcoming. He also told
Padre de Mello that it was his duty as Vicar-General to enforce
obedience.
Two months elapsed, and there were no apologies. Nor did Padre
de Mello communicate with Hartmann, who expected regular
meetings with his Vicar-General. So Hartmann decided on stern
measures. First he dismissed Padre de Mello from his post of Vicar-
General. 131 Then he suspended Padre Braz Fernandes, on the specious
ground that there were 'disorders' in his church. Instead he sent his
Secretary, Father Ignatius Persico, a Neapolitan Capuchin, to take
over from Padre Braz. Father Persico himself was convinced this was a
righteous act, for he suspected Braz of having a mistress and 'a
demonic spirit' .132 But the parishioners thought differently, and when
Persico arrived the church and presbytery were shut and he could not
get in. Then the parishioners held a meeting and voted to transfer to
the jurisdiction of Goa. In this situation all Hartmann could think of
doing was to appeal to the government for support.
When the government pronounced its disapproval of the parishi-
oners' proceedings, Hartmann was delighted: 'I already got from the
Roman Catholic gentlemen of rank their congratulations and
expressions of their high satisfaction and esteem towards the
government.'133 No doubt he wanted to counteract the implications
of an editorial which had just appeared in the Bombay Catholic
Layman, describing his supporters as toddy-tappers, coolies and
fishermen. 134 Lord Falkland, the Governor, wanted to send him a
letter of reassurance. But Falkland's colleagues were less impressed by
Hartmann's notion that the views of the upper class were what
counted. They warned Falkland that Hartmann had misunderstood
the official position, which was merely to disapprove of the way the
parishioners had taken the law into their own hands instead of
applying to the government so that a magistrate could be officially
appointed to ascertain the views of the majority. When this was done
the result might well be for the government to authorise a transfer to
the jurisdiction of Goa.
Falkland deferred to his colleagues, and no reply was sent to
Hartmann. 135 In fact, Hartmann had also misunderstood the
government's position when he argued for its support on the ground
that a Bishop had no coercive authority: 'as he has no physical power
to enforce obedience to the guilty he would be a mockery and the
clergy insolent were he not supported by that Government under
72
whose protection and for whose interest he is labouring and

suffering' .
Meanwhile the reference to the Court of Directors had met with
the expected response. The Court ruled that disputes about
ecclesiastical jurisdiction must in future be decided by the law courts.
The Church Wardens now had to appoint a lawyer, Robert Leech, to
advise them. On his advice they held another church meeting, and at
his request a detachment of police under Captain Baynes stood by in
case of trouble. As most people expected, the majority voted to
transfer to Goa. Leech then advised the Church Wardens to take their
case to the Supreme Court. In the end the Court ruled in the Church
Wardens' favour. Meanwhile Braz Fernandes appealed to Padre
Antonio Soares, the Archbishop of Goa's Vicar-General. Soares held
an investigation and lifted his suspension. 136 In other words,
Hartmann had lost Salva~ao.
At this sensitive time the Portuguese Bishop Mata arrived from
Macao. He was received in triumph at the Gloria Church,
Mazagaon, where he ordained priests and administered confirma-
tion. Padre de Mello, still at St Michael's, Mahim, though no longer
Vicar-General, told Hartmann that he feared his own parishioners
might take the opportunity to transfer their church to Goa.
Hartmann solemnly replied that he should do his best to stop them.
'Who does not obey the Bishop appointed by the Holy See does not
obey Christ himself.137 Of course Bishop Mata had also been
appointed by the Holy See, but all such appointments were to
dioceses, and his was Macao.
A church meeting was appointed for the following day, a Sunday.
Hartmann drove to the church in a closed carriage, and arrived when
the voting on the transfer of jurisdiction had begun. His arrival took
everyone by surprise and interrupted the proceedings. He proposed
prayers facing the exposition of the Sacrament, and asked Padre de
Mello for the key to the tabernacle. Padre de Mello said that those
who had the key would not give it up. Hartmann threatened to
excommunicate him, but without effect. So Hartmann merely said
prayers before the closed tabernacle, and the police then turned
everyone out of the nave of the church. At ten o'clock in the evening
Captain Baynes, the Police Superintendent, appeared, together with
Michael O'Mealy, an enthusiastic Irish layman of independent views.
Baynes asked Hartmann to leave, but he refused. 138
In fact Hartmann remained in the church for eight days. At one
point his solicitor, Dr R.A. Dallas, asked the Magistrate to intervene,
73
but the Magistrate saw no reason to do so. What Hartmann

particularly disliked in Bombay was the amount of lay participation
in church affairs. The administration of St Michael's was in the hands
of a Board consisting of the parish priest as president with a number
of the laity as officers and members - an Administrator (or
Fabriqueiro), a Treasurer, six Wardens and six subordinate officers.
There was also a vigorous lay confraternity. Hartmann thought the
confraternity seemed active in the subsequent legal proceedings
against him. He reported indignantly to the Pope that there were
even some women among its members! 139
There were various unsuccessful attempts to persuade him to leave.
Finally, his opponents nailed up the doors and windows, and the heat
inside was said to be considerable. The Magistrate was then
persuaded to come and see for himself what had happened. He
arrived at sunset, had the doors and windows opened, and Hartmann
emerged. He promptly dismissed Padre de Mello and appointed a
Goanese Jesuit, Father Antony Pereira, in his place. Between them
they prevented de Mello from saying Mass in the church, but he used
a nearby schoolroom instead. 140
When the case was heard in the Supreme Court, Sir William
Yardley, the Chief Justice, commented adversely on Hartmann's
conduct as 'very arbitrary'. Even so, he found the plaintiffs had not
proved their case, and it was dismissed with costs. Yardley added,
however, that their case had been imperfectly put together. 141
Encouraged by this hint the confraternity tried again, and this time
judgement was given in their favour: they were entitled to possession
of the church. Hartmann had to withdraw, protesting that it was
uncanonical. But the British courts were not administering the canon
law of the Roman Catholic Church. He had now lost St Michael's as
well as Salva~ao. But he was soon collecting funds to build new
churches for his supporters.
In Rome the apparent disarray of the Bombay Carmelites had
proved fatal to their case. Whelan was forced to resign from Bombay
on grounds of health in 1850. 142 Hartmann, who wanted to return to
the relative peace of Patna, urged that Archbishop Ludovico be
brought from Kerala to Bombay, but by then Ludovico had been
accused of various offences by his fellow-Carmelite Bishops, and had
been recalled to Rome, ostensibly to give advice (see Chapter III).
In the end, the Carmelites had to resign the Bombay mission, which
was divided into two: the North, with Bombay as its headquarters,
was assigned to the Capuchins; the South, centred on Pune, was
74
assigned to German Jesuits. But after their losses in northern India in

the Mutiny and Revolt of 1857, the Capuchins resigned the field and
both halves of the Bombay mission came under German Jesuits.
Meanwhile, Father Michael Antony returned to Mangalore, where
he became Vicar Apostolic and was soon involved in controversies.
Four Indian priests were condemned in a Papal Brief in which it was
asserted that they had stirred up dissension; they were Padre Antonio
Soares, the Archbishop of Goa's Vicar-General, Padre de Mello,
Padre Braz Fernandes, and Padre Gabriel de Silva. All were
suspended, but as they were all under the jurisdiction of Goa, and
no Papal document was regarded by the Archbishop of Goa as
authentic without the approval of the Portuguese government, they
were able to continue their work as priests. Moreover, in 1857 a
concordat was agreed between Rome and Lisbon whereby the
Archbishop of Goa could extend his authority when resources
permitted. In fact, resources did not permit, and the concordat was
never implemented. However, as a consequence of the negotiations
leading to the concordat the four priests did penance and were
absolved, although there was much discussion among strict
supporters of Propaganda Fide as to whether they had really been
penitent and whether absolution had been too readily granted. Padre
Soares retired to Goa, much enfeebled, and died soon afterwards. He
was buried with high honours. Padre de Mello died much later, after
falling downstairs in an inebriated condition - so the Jesuit Bishop
reported severely.143 But Padre Braz Fernandes, genial as ever, lived
to a ripe old age and achieved the honorific post of Vara of Thana. In
1889, when the Apostolic Delegate wanted reliable information
about a church in the area he consulted two authorities: one was the
Jesuit archbishop of Bombay, the other was Padre Braz Fernandes. 144
On his death in 1890 Padre Gabriel de Silva succeeded him as Vara of
Thana. So each of the four rebellious priests had happily survived the
Papal condemnation.
Throughout these controversies Goa's influence remained strong -
indeed, increased in strength. In 1902, when the Polish Archbishop
Ladislao Zaleski, as Apostolic Delegate, drew up a confidential report
on the Church in India, he noted that only 7,000 of the Roman
Catholics of Bombay city were under the Jesuit Archbishop of
Bombay, whereas 27,750 acknowledged the jurisdiction of the
Portuguese Bishop of Damaon, and through him that of the
Archbishop of Goa. 145 Part of the explanation lies in Goa's long
religious tradition, which included the training of Indian priests in its
75
seminaries. The British authorities recognised this, and to counteract

Portuguese influence supported a seminary in Bombay.
Yet Indian priests trained there still tended to sympathise with
Goa. Since 1787 they had seen Propaganda Fide's instructions
ignored by Carmelite Bishops, who gave preference to Italian
missionaries rather than Indian priests. Bishop Whelan was the
exception. After him the Capuchin Bishop Hartmann seemed as
suspicious of Indian priests as any of Whelan's predecessors. So the
Archbishop of Goa's jurisdiction was seen as offering more
opportunities to Indian priests, who could usually rely on the
support of middle-class Church Wardens. But low-caste Catholics
preferred Italian priests. The explanation for this can be found in
some of the arguments which Padre Duarte deployed in favour of the
wider use of Indian priests in accordance with Whelan's policy.
Indian priests, according to Padre Duarte, understood Indian
Catholics better than European missionaries ever could. They
realised that low castes had an imperfect grasp of the Catholic faith,
and might even keep Hindu idols in their homes. Indian priests knew
how to be severe with such low-caste people, whereas European
missionaries tended to be too indulgent. 146 A similar point can be
found in a comment on the Indian Jesuit Father Antony Pereira. He
was said to be an excellent Jesuit, but his Superior regretted that his
manner lacked politeness. 147 It seems probable that low-caste
Catholics in the changing environment of Bombay resented the
high-caste attitudes of Indian priests and preferred the more genial
ways of the Italians.
The conflict of jurisdictions also had social implications.
Catholics who disliked their priest could apply to be transferred to
the other jurisdiction. The British government's policy of consulting
the majority in such a situation encouraged low castes to express
their resentments, knowing that a Magistrate would come to seek
their views. Fishers, tailors, toddy-tappers and coolies appeared in
Catholic Church meetings in Bombay long before low-castes
ventured to express themselves in political meetings. More generally,
the government's policy encouraged a high degree of lay participa-
tion in church affairs. Women even emerged in lay fraternities along
with men, to the scandal of one stiff-necked Bishop. More than a
century before Vatican II it became an accepted practice in Bombay's
churches to have meetings in which the leading part was taken by lay
Catholics - Fabriqueiros, Treasurers, Church Wardens and many
others.
76
The government's policy of neutrality greatly annoyed this

particular Bishop. Hartmann suspected base motives: 'The Govern-
ment, which makes it its policy to keep up the castes, viz. to keep the
people divided, connives to the schism.'148 But it was unrealistic to
expect Protestant officials to decide between Propaganda Fide and the
padroado. After many intricate and acrimonious disputes the Court of
Directors ruled that a law court was the best place to decide such
tricky questions - except for those country parishes where the priest
received a government stipend, for in such cases the government
would be in duty bound to ensure that it was paid to the priest who
had the approbation of the majority.149 Religious neutrality was an
obvious solution, and it had political advantages. However, to
support a seminary for training Catholic priests and to pay stipends
to those priests was hardly consonant with a policy of religious
neutrality. When the Court of Directors challenged the Bombay
government to justify such expenditure there was some anxious
discussion. The cost of the seminary was not very great after all- only
150 rupees a month. But perhaps this meant that the education it
provided was not very good? And perhaps its existence meant that
Rome did not send better educated priests from Europe?
At this point the discussion was taken up at more rarefied levels, in
the Government of India in Calcutta. Closing the seminary might not
elicit better educated priests from Europe. Even if it did, they might
not be as suitable as the 'Native Portuguese priests' who were surely
all that native Catholics needed. With these somewhat patronising
comments the Government of India advised leaving things as they
were. ISO As for the stipendiary priests, mainly in the Konkan, the
expense was slight - they were merely paid between 10 and 100
rupees a month. The Collector recommended generosity: Indian
Catholics were always on the verge of lapsing from the Faith, he
thought. The government agreed that it would be inexpedient to stop
paying the stipends. lSI But the Court of Directors ordered, in August
1858, that the stipends should end on the death of the present
incumbents. 1S2 Three weeks later the Company's rule ended.
After the Jesuits had taken control of Bombay there was an end to
controversy. One reason was cost. In the heyday of the Company its
Magistrates would make enquiries on the spot, take votes and
establish the views of the majority, often a majority of the poor and
the low caste - all this without costing the disputants an anna. But
when the arena moved to the law courts the expense of such disputes
was too great, even for middle-class Catholics. Another reason was
77
that the Jesuits promoted education at all levels, and this had long
been a goal of Catholics at all levels. Today we still see in the poorest
areas of Bombay neatly dressed boys and girls picking their way
through the debris towards the Catholic primary school. The Jesuits
had found a solution to the caste and class disputes that had troubled
and enlivened Bombay's Catholic churches in the heyday of the East
India Company.
78
Chapter V
Capuchins, Boatmen and Irishmen in

Madras
The political changes of the late-eighteenth century had troublesome

repercussions for the sleepy Capuchin mission in Madras. It had been
essentially a French mission ever since the British authorities
encouraged a French Capuchin missionary to settle in Fort St George
in 1642. He was in fact on his way to Pegu, but the British wanted to
counterbalance Portuguese influence in their new settlement. But in
the 1780s the position was reversed. The Company's government then
found that for reasons of home politics it was expedient to show
sympathy for Portuguese interests. French entanglements in Mysore
provided an additional reason for the Madras government to favour
the Portuguese Bishop of San Thome in nearby Mailapur (Mylapore)
rather than the French Bishop in Pondichery.
Portuguese and Eurasian finance and traditions of Catholicism
were also strong in Madras, and they worked in favour of the new
policy. When Syndics were appointed to control Capuchin finances
the De Fries brothers, well-known bankers, were among those
appointed, and they took a leading part in the subsequent negotia-
tions. St John's Church was founded with financial help from the Di
Monte family. The predominantly low-caste Parchery area was an
important centre of Catholic devotion, and the church there was built
by Parias with financial help from Thomas de Souza, a rich merchant.
The Fisher caste in the Rayapuram area provided another important
group of Catholics. As in other parts of the South, some Fishers had
grown rich through expanding into maritime trade, and the
Rayapuram church was built with money saved by the Fishers
themselves. The British authorities took a particular interest in the
Fishers because of their importance in the running of the port and
harbour of Madras. Ships had to anchor at a distance from the shore,
passengers and cargo being transhipped across the surf by boatmen of
79
the Fisher caste. When the Fishers had difficulties with the priest in
their church they found the Marine Board ready to intervene on their
behalf.
Sir Archibald Campbell, the Governor, obediently found reasons
for supporting the Portuguese Bishop. He told his colleagues in 1787
that he had made 'Discoveries' about the Roman Catholics of the
area. They numbered some 100,000, of whom nearly 17,000 lived in
and around Madras. 'It must therefore be of great consequence to this
Government to attach such a considerable body of People to our
Interest.' But the Capuchin mission was French, and under the
influence of the French Bishop in Pondichery, who also had an
influence over the French ex-Jesuits who were 'wandering about
India'. These speculations excited Campbell. 'This in my opinion
develops the whole Mystery', he commented dramatically. British
policy should be to promote the authority of the Portuguese Bishop of
Mailapur to offset the influence of the French Bishop of Pondichery.l
Campbell had some discussion with a few 'respectable' Catholics,
who told him there were 'great abuses' in the financial administration
of the Capuchin mission. 2 The government accordingly devised
formal regulations for the Capuchins. Their funds were entrusted to
four lay Syndics, 'persons of Property and fair character', who would
be nominated by the Bishop of Mailapur. More significantly, the
regulations also provided that the spiritual affairs of all Roman
Catholic churches under the Madras government should be supervised
by the Bishop. All priests would have to obtain his permission before
they could exercise their functions, and would also have to swear an
oath before him that they would not act contrary to British interests. 3
After the suppression of the Jesuits their duties in South India had
devolved upon the Missions Etrangeres based in Ponclichery. The
French authorities there had wanted a dignified Vicar Apostolic of
episcopal rank to take control, but because this might have offended
Portuguese sensitivity to any threat to the padroado, Propaganda Fide
instead appointed a Prefect Apostolic with the authority of Superior
over the French missionaries. Bishop Pierre Brigot was then chosen:
austere and self-effacing, he had previously been Vicar Apostolic in
Thailand. 4 When the Vicar-General of Mailapur announced the new
arrangements Brigot had been succeeded in Pondichery by the
emotional Nicolas Champenois, Bishop of Dolicha in partibus. He
at once protested: he was the Superior of the French missionaries,
'with every power that the Holy See has been accustomed to grant to
the Holy Vicars of the East Indies'. He added tactlessly and incorrectly
80
CAPUCHINS, BOATMEN AND IRISHMEN IN MADRAS
-------.-
that the diocese of Mailapur was very small, and he concluded

piously: 'We should never in time of war forget that we ought to be
the Angels of Peace.'s
He was warmly supported by the French Governor of Pondichhy,
who in his turn protested to Campbell against the authority claimed
by the Vicar-General, whom he termed sarcastically the 'grand Vicar'
('grand Vicaire'): 'This grand Vicar who believes himself still in the
fourteenth century has not ceased to harass the mildest and most
peaceable of men, a Bishop respectable for his years and his virtues' -
in other words Bishop Champenois. This 'warlike grand Vicar' was
'more actuated with the spirit of the Koran than of the Gospel'. 6
There was no ground for this insinuation, nor for the reference to
Islam, but the French Governor was aware of British suspicions that
French missionaries in Mysore might be influencing the Muslim ruler,
Tipu Sultan. Campbell replied that far from being Angels of Peace
French missionaries had been 'officiating as spies' on behalf of Tipu
Sultan. Therefore the Madras government 'thought it necessary to
take such measures as would in future prevent those wolves in sheep's
clothing from doing further mischief, and to appoint a careful Pastor
to guard the Flock against their future voracity'. The authority of the
Portuguese may have been dormant, but it was 'long acknowledged'?
The Capuchins themselves attempted some ineffectual protests
against the new system, but the Syndics were inflexible: accounts had
to be produced and resources checked. After some urgent correspon-
dence with the home authorities, the French Capuchins shrewdly
decided to have a German, Father Ferdinand, as their Superior, and
asked the Madras Government for its approval, which was promptly
given. 8 Soon Ferdinand was writing to Rome about the problems of
the Capuchins in Madras. He asked for more missionaries. Otherwise,
he argued, the mission would fall into the hands of Indian priests,
'which would be a great evil' ('ce qu'il serait un tres grand rna!'). His
reason for thinking it an evil was the notion that Indian Catholics
'often abandoned themselves to moral corruption' ('souvent its
s'abandonnent a la corruption des moeurs'). Of course it was very
unfortunate that Europeans set them a bad example. 9 So Europeans
also were apt to be immoral: Ferdinand had quickly undermined his
argument that Indians were by nature immoral. Logic was never his
strong point.
This general argument was a recurrent theme in appeals to Rome
and to the government against the control of the Bishop of Mailapur:
that he was likely to install Indian priests in place of Europeans, and
81
that Indians had immoral tendencies, immorality in such contexts

invariably implying sexual immorality. The other main argument was
that his motives were material - to obtain control of the Capuchins'
finances.
From Pondichery, Father Damas wrote despondently to Rome in
his capacity as Capuchin Prefect to the effect that the Madras
Capuchin mission was 'finished' (Cfinita'). But when the matter came
up for discussion in the halls of Propaganda Fide it was agreed that
such problems were not peculiar to Madras or Pondichery. Not only
in India but also in the Levant there had been complaints that the
Capuchins were sending overseas 'dissolute and corrupt' (,scostumati
e perversi') individuals who could not settle down in Europe. What
was unusual in Madras was the political situation, which made things
difficult for French missionaries as such. It was decided to send
Italians there instead. 10
What weakened the Madras Capuchins in their relations with a
suspicious and confident Protestant government was the secrecy with
which they guarded their finances. Soon the Syndics heard that Father
Ferdinand was trying to sell a Bond. When they asked him about it he
said the Bond did not constitute part of the funds of the mission. This
only aroused further suspicions, and the government devised tighter
regulations to strengthen the Syndics' control. Ferdinand appealed
urgently to the government not to enforce these regulations, adding
lamely that he and his colleagues would explain their objections after
their Lenten duties had been completed. But abstinence did not inspire
them to formulate any convincing arguments, and it was arranged
that the Bishop of Mailapur would accompany the Syndics to the
Capuchin Church to inspect the funds.
When the day came and Father Ferdinand was asked to hand over
the Bonds and accounts, he refused. As it was solemnly recorded in
the government's records: 'The said Superior answered that he came
to this Church with his stick and Breviary, and with them he would go
out, and accordingly he went away.' It was a dramatic scene. Before
he left, Father Ferdinand symbolically handed over the church, the
monastery and everything else to Father Benjamin, a French
Capuchin, who promptly locked and sealed Ferdinand's room, which
presumably contained some of the records the Bishop and Syndics
wanted to see. 11 However, Ferdinand returned a few days later, and he
handed over the Bonds and records to Benjamin, who in turn passed
them to the Syndics. In spite of their suspicions, everything seemed to
be in order. The Capuchins' resources were all accounted for, and they
82
were substantial. They were thereupon placed on deposit In the

government treasury. 12
From their vantage point in Pondichery the French Bishop and
missionaries watched events in Madras with fascinated disapproval.
But the French Revolution ended their detachment. When the
Revolution reached Pondichery in 1793, the new French Government
made arrangements for the planting of a Tree of Liberty at the Place
d1\rmes. A Te Deum was to be sung, and Bishop Champenois was
told that everyone should attend. He replied that he was ready for
death, went to the Church and remained on his knees before the altar.
Some soldiers came to fetch him, but he refused to go. Then an envoy
came from the Governor, with the message that all the citizens wanted
him to come, and that as the whole nation was at one ('toute une
nation etant d'accord'), he should yield. He still refused. But his
fellow missionaries advised him to escape, and he made his way to
Mailapur, bordering MadrasY The French Capuchins in Pondichery
were expelled from their monastery, which was taken over by the
revolutionary government, and they also made their way to Madras,
where they took refuge with their brother-Capuchins. 14
After planting the Tree of Liberty, Commissaire Dumourier
delivered an eloquent speech, saying much about liberty and equality
but nothing about fraternity, with a passing reference to those who
would like to resurrect the old usurpations of the Noblesse and the
Clergy ('les anciennes usurpations de la Noblesse et du Clerge'), and
ending with the threat that he would treat as a traitor anyone who
failed to obey the constituted authorities. 15 The French missionaries
who were left in Pondichery then sang the Te Deum and one of them
said a Mass under the Tree of Liberty for citizens who had died for
their country. At a safe distance in Karikal four other French priests of
the Missions Etrangeres condemned their colleagues in Pondichery for
these compromises with the Revolution. The procurer of the mission
defended himself for taking the oath of liberty and equality on the
ground that he understood by equality merely that the Noblesse had
been abolished. Bishop Champenois confided to Propaganda Fide that
it had a much more malign implication - which, however, he did not
specify.16
Bishop Champenois himself had grave doubts about the behaviour
of the Pondichery missionaries. But he was delighted with the
reception he was given in Madras by the Bishop of Mailapur, by the
Capuchins and by the British Governor. His delight was short-lived,
however. When he went to dinner with the Bishop a fortnight later, he
83
was given a letter from the Governor, granting him permission to

remain in Madras provided that he took the prescribed oath before
the Bishop of Mailapur. The Bishop said that he left all such details to
his Vicar-General, but the Vicar-General produced a modification of
. the usual oath. Bishop Champenois would have had to promise not
only to do nothing contrary to British interests but also to submit to
all the regulations made by the Governor for priests in the diocese of
Mailapur. Bishop Champenois refused, and went sadly away without
his dinner. He later took refuge in the Danish settlement of
Tranquebar. 17
When Father Damas, now in Madras, heard that the Governor
thought that Benjamin would be a more efficient Superior than Father
Ferdinand, he promptly appointed him. He also made him Vice-
Prefect. IS But Benjamin was soon involved in difficulties with the
Bishop of Mailapur. He complained to Rome that the Bishop
continually interfered with the missionaries of Propaganda Fide, in
other words, with Benjamin and his colleagues «moleste continuelle-
ment les missionaires de la sa cree propagande'). He criticised the
Bishop's own clergy, calling them 'a few black priests of the country,
who had no knowledge of Latin, or of morals, or of anything except
money' «quelques pretres noirs du pays. qui ne savent ni Latin, ni
morale, et sans aucune connaissance que celie de ['argent'). They also
injured Europeans, he added vaguely.19
Soon after the British captured Pondichery, Bishop Champenois
returned, and in the presence of leading British officials he sang a
Requiem Mass for Louis XVI. 20 A few months later he wrote a
solemn letter of protest to the Bishop of Mailapur, in which he insisted
on his right to the title and independent status of a Vicar Apostolic. 21
This aroused consternation in the halls of Propaganda Fide. Hasty
research in the archives revealed that by mistake he had indeed been
officially addressed as Vicar Apostolic in a letter from Rome. 22 This
was shamefacedly reported to a General Congregation of Propaganda
Fide, which resolved that 'all possible politeness' «tutta la possibile
convenienza') should be shown to the Bishop of Mailapur, to whom it
should be explained that the Bishop of Dolicha was merely a Superior
with the faculties of a Vicar Apostolic, but not of course the title, or
indeed the status. 23
Father Damas decided to stay in Madras, pleading physical
weakness, and Father Benjamin went to Pondichery to restore the
Capuchins to their monastery. He appointed an Italian Capuchin,
Father Benedetto, to take charge there. As Damas had taken the
84
Capuchins' funds with him to Madras, Father Benjamin had to collect

more for the French Capuchins in Pondichery, with the help of a
personal grant from the British Governor. 24 However, he seems to
have lacked the tact which would have helped him in Madras in these
difficult times. For example, he reprimanded Father Onorato, an
Italian Capuchin who had joined the Madras monastery, for walking
about in public in his shirt-sleeves, asking for money from door to
door. Father Benjamin thought such doings undignified, although they
accorded with the Indian climate and with Indian ideas of the
behaviour appropriate to men of God. Soon he found the atmosphere
in the monastery so unpleasant that he asked the Portuguese Bishop of
Mailapur to let him live outside it. The Bishop assigned him a little
church and presbytery in the jungle. 25
Father Benjamin also took a severe view of the oath of Liberty and
Equality, and Father Arnoldin of Pondichery had to make a solemn
retraction before him. Bishop Champenois, however, reported
sorrowfully to Propaganda Fide that he thought that Father Arnoldin
still breathed the air of democracy ('il ne respire que la democratie,)?6
Then damaging evidence was speedily produced about Benjamin's
private life. It was said that a certain Madame SoUier, dressed as a
man, had gone to his room one evening when her husband was away,
and remained there for one and a half hours. 27 With the government's
approval, the Bishop of Mailapur removed him from office, tactfully
mentioning Father Benjamin's 'infirmities' (infirmites') as the reason,
and appointed Father Damas in his place. 28 But Father Benjamin was
unwilling to submit to his successor as Superior, and he still lived
outside the monastery. Father Damas proceeded to denounce him to
the Bishop of Mailapur for extravagance and 'the most disgusting
drunkenness' ('l'ivrognerie la plus crapuleuse,}.29
Father Damas followed this up with a report that Benjamin was
building a house for himself and that he had with him a young woman
of 18 and her husband. He asked the Bishop of Mailapur to order
Benjamin back to his cloister. But the Bishop suavely advised Father
Damas to be more polite to Father Benjamin. As for the young
woman, she was after all 'very ugly ('tres laide'), and she was married
to the young man who was Benjamin's servant and who had been
recommended by a respectable French layman. 3o Father Damas
quickly replied that her ugliness was indeed excusable, but did not
mitigate the scanda1. 31 Meanwhile Propaganda Fide, unaware of the
recent scandal, had appointed Father Benjamin as Capuchin Prefect.
He lost no time in telling Father Damas that he was taking his place
85
again. But he was mortified to find how calmly Father Damas received
the news. According to Benjamin, Damas was 'as usual playing cards'
('selon sa CQutume en partie des jeux de cartes'), and refused to take
any notice. Benjamin thereupon left the room - modestly, as he
reported it ('je me retirai avec modestie,).32
Finally, Benjamin was persuaded to resign as Prefect in favour of
the Italian Father Benedetto, and this was approved by Propaganda
Fide. But when the order arrived, signed by no less an authority than
Cardinal Stefano Borgia, the Prefect of Propaganda Fide, Father
Benedetto noted sorrowfully that the French Bishop was unwilling to
help him establish his authority. Back in Pondichery, Bishop
Champenois reported that when he lived for a month in the Capuchin
monastery in Madras he had noticed nothing irregular in Father
Benjamin's conduct. But he now looked with lofty disdain on the
doings of the Italian Capuchins there. He wrote to two French priests
in 1801, and the letter soon reached Propaganda Fide, that the
Madras Capuchin mission was 'in a most pitiful state' (un etat Ie plus
pitoyab/e'). He remarked sarcastically that Father Benedetto seemed
unwilling to go to Madras for fear of being rebuffed. 33 Propaganda
Fide duly sent a solemn rebuke to Father Benedetto: he should be
courageous, follow the advice of Bishop Champenois and trust in
God. 34 In fact, among other good deeds Benedetto had settled the
question of the mission's funds which Damas had left in disarray. He
was stung into replying tartly that he had travelled to Madras from
Pondichery at least seven times to deal with various problems. 35
The changes and chances of this fleeting world brought further
problems. The death of the Bishop of Mailapur in 1800 left the
diocese in the charge of his Vicar-General. The deaths of Fathers
Damas and Ferdinand left the Madras Capuchins without senior
members, as Father Onorato had gone away abruptly and was
reported first in Bengal and then in Surat. Later he was said to be
wandering along the Coromandel coast in Persian dress earning his
living as a trader. Bishop Champenois remarked grimly that he did not
know who had released Onorato from ecclesiastical censure for
breaking his vows in this way.36
The Vicar-General appointed Father Lorenzo da Sassari as Super-
ior, with the approval of the Syndics and the confirmation of the
Madras government. 37 Soon there were more difficulties with the
government. Father Lorenzo rashly celebrated the marriage of the
young lord George Stuart, who had eloped with an Eurasian girl. Her
father was a British general, who had sent her to England to complete
86
her education. There she met Lord George, who followed her back to
India. His family asked Lord Clive, now Governor of Madras, to
prevent the marriage, and the Anglican chaplain therefore refused to
marry them. They then turned to Father Lorenzo, who thought that
they were Catholics and gladly officiated at the marriage. Clive
thereupon expelled Lorenzo from the settlement, and he took refuge
in Tranquebar. 38 Lord Clive had thought Lorenzo had officiated at the
marriage for money, but when he was convinced that Lorenzo's fault
was the result of inexperience, he sent him a passport to secure his
return to Madras. Father Benedetto, as Prefect, refused to have him
back.
Benedetto had already appointed another Superior, Father Mar-
cello da Gradisca, an old man who seemed malleable. But once
installed in office Father Marcello revealed that he had a will of his
own. He refused to follow Benedetto's advice, and invited the Vicar-
General of Mailapur to visit the mission. Then he put himself under
the Vicar-General's protection. 39 This exacerbated the problem of
conflicting jurisdictions.
By now Bishop Champenois was a sick man; he complained of
constipation - an unusual problem for Europeans in India. 4o
However, on questions of priestly conduct he and the authorities of
Mailapur seemed to be in agreement. When the Vicar-General ordered
the French Abbe Lambert to leave Madras within fifteen days,
Lambert appealed to the British Governor, asserting that the
authorities of Mailapur pursued a policy of replacing French with
Indian priests with a hidden aim - 'the true motive by which they put
us away one after another and replace in our stead the country priests,
which motive being to take possession of the Church and seize the
Capuchins' funds,.41 Here again was the old insinuation against the
Portuguese authorities. Then Lambert was mortified to find that
Bishop Champenois had sent a critical report about him to Mailapur:
'This letter contains a sarcasm very badly applyed [sic], he calls me a
little sprig of Luther because Luther caused to go away from the
convent a nun whom he married and he would insinuate thereby that I
did almost the same thing' .42 Lambert protested that all he had done
was to put in charge of a school which he had built one of the
convent's pupils who was involved in some dispute - 'that action
which ought to praise me [sic] it has been the cause of the sarcasm of
the Bishop of Pondicherry', he concluded indignantly.43
Eventually he was allowed to stay in Madras, and was appointed to
the Fisher caste church of Rayapuram. But soon the Fisher caste
87
headmen wanted him to go. Offended by his 'intemperate' manners,

they asked for an Indian priest of their own caste, and they also
wanted control of church finances. With their determination that the
port and harbour should run smoothly the British were sympathetic to
the grievances of the 'Boatmen'. So the officials of the Marine Board
supported their complaints, pointing out that the Fishers had built
their church with their own resources. 44 This time Lambert had no
alternative. The government insisted on his speedy departure, and the
Vicar-General of Mailapur had to find a congenial priest, although he
had no one of the Fisher caste. But the Fishers' funds were left under
the control of the Syndics. 45
Meanwhile, reports of disarray in Madras prompted Propaganda
Fide to instruct Bishop Champenois to make a visitation. But the
Bishop was unwilling to go himself, and the British Government was
unwilling for him to come: it seemed inexpedient to allow French
influence back into Madras. Other people he approached made
excuses. Finally, he appointed an Italian Capuchin, Father Fidele. But
Father Marcello diplomatically referred the question of conflicting
jurisdictions to the Madras government. Lord William Bentinck, the
Governor, took a long view: in the history of the Catholic Church, he
commented, quite correctly, there had been many disputes between
Bishops and regulars, but in this case the authority of the Bishop of
Mailapur, as Ordinary, must be respected. It was in British interests to
do SO.46 When he reported to Rome, Father Marcello had some
difficulty in explaining his obstructive tactics: in a rambling letter he
referred to personal rivalries and insinuated that the instructions for a
Visitation had probably been prompted by the French Bishop in the
first place {'probabiliter procuratas ad suum intentum,).47
However, the Italian Capuchins seemed to have as many problems
as their French predecessors. After a painful enquiry Father Fidele
appointed Father Giovanni Battista as Prefect. Fidele himself became
Superior. But still there were difficulties, although Giovanni Battista
tried to establish order. During Fidele's visitation the youngest
Capuchin, Father Eustachio, had complained that he was given no
responsibility. He was made Procurator, with responsibility for the
property and finances of the mission. Soon Giovanni Battista accused
him of a suspicious friendship with an Indian girl who announced
proudly that he had given her a year's supply of rice and thirteen
pagodas in money. The friendship was speedily ended.
Father Eustachio was said to have then formed another unwise
friendship, this time with a married lady whose husband, a seafaring
88
man, was a prisoner of war in the Isle de France. He was not a rich
man, but she was living in style, with servants and slaves. People said
Eustachio was providing the money. When the seafaring man returned
to Madras at the end of the war he bought a boat and began to make
trading voyages as its captain. Again Eustachio was suspected of
providing the money. Giovanni Battista reported to Propaganda Fide
that he had drawn 400 pagodas from mission funds. With this and
another 200 pagodas he had been paid for an illicit marriage service,
he had enabled the seafaring man to buy his boat. But the man failed
to return from a voyage he had made to Bengal, claiming that he had
lost his boat in the Ganges, although unkind people said he had been
seen in Colombo, still with his boat and living with another woman. 48
At last Giovanni Battista told Eustachio to leave Madras for
Pondichery because of his scandalous conduct. But Eustachio refused
to go, and put himself under the protection of the Vicar-General of
Mailapur. He also established his own church, with a predominantly
low-caste congregation, in a deserted warehouse. Giovanni Battista
asked Propaganda Fide to recall him.49 But Eustachio complained to
Propaganda about the doings of Father Giovanni Battista, his Prefect,
and also of Father Fidele, his Superior. They had caused trouble, he
said, by sheltering two priests who had offended the Archbishop of
Goa and the Vicar-General of Mailapur. Also, Giovanni Battista tried
to avoid parish work. In the Fishers' church at Rayapuram, where he
was parish priest, he had been harsh to people when he heard their
confessions, and several had lapsed into Hinduism. What Madras
needed, Father Eustachio said virtuously, was a supply of good
missionaries. He recommended a visitation. As for himself, he asked
leave to return to Europe: after all, he had served for twelve years as a
missionary. so
With the prospect of international peace in 1814, Propaganda Fide
began to investigate the state of its Indian missions, so long obscured
by the difficulty of communications between Europe and Asia. An
enquiry was sent to Father Benedetto, who was still thought to be
Prefect of the Capuchin mission in Madras: he was told to provide an
exact statement. S1 In fact, after he had been unseated Benedetto
abruptly left the mission without permission, and no one knew quite
where he was. The result was an elaborate and unconvincing attempt
by Father Giovanni Battista to justify his behaviour, as Prefect, in
protecting the two priests who had offended the Archbishop of Goa
and his Vicar-General. The two priests had been wrongly accused, he
said. He had admitted them into the Capuchin Order as tertiaries, not
89
so that they could escape the Archbishop's jurisdiction but because

they wanted to be capuchins for devotional reasons. 52
The news that the Roman curia was functioning normally again
prompted a petition to Propaganda Fide signed by nearly 200
Catholics of Madras. The first to sign had English names but most of
the names were Portuguese, and the petition itself was drafted in
Portuguese with a French translation helpfully provided. No doubt it
had become known that letters in Latin, Italian and French often
produced relatively prompt replies, while letters in other languages
did not. Giovanni Battista and Fidele were criticised as 'wolves'
('lobos') rather than shepherds of their flock. Giovanni Battista was
impatient and irritable, Fidele insolent and presumptuous. On the rare
occasions when Fidele preached he denounced local Christians
bitterly, but he spent most of his time teaching Italian to English
ladies and gentlemen. Fidele had offended so many members of the
three lay confraternities that they no longer met regularly. As for the
two priests sheltered by Giovanni Battista, they had spent three weeks
in the Madras gaol because they had run up debts of a thousand
pagodas which they could not pay. Fidele's behaviour towards the
four Syndics responsible for the financial affairs of the mission was
also criticised. It had been customary for the Superior to render
annual accounts to them, but Fidele had failed to do so, and when
they complained he cited them in the courts. The petitioners wanted
Eustachio as Superior instead of Fidele, because they liked his gentle
and peace a ble disposition. 53
When Propaganda Fide considered these matters in 1816 there was
general agreement that an Apostolic Visitor should go to Madras to
put things right. 54 Bishop Alcantara was promptly nominated and
given precise instructions. Besides remedying abuses in the Capuchin
mission he was told to investigate the various complaints made by the
laity against Giovanni Battista and Fidele. Alcantara was also
provided with some positive recommendations. Apart from anything
else the Capuchins should be told to behave courteously and gently
with the laity, and Fidele in particular should be instructed to render
regular accounts to the Syndics. There was also the problem of the
relations between the Capuchin mission and the Vicar-General of
Mailapur. As a general principle the Capuchins were to be reminded
that they were responsible to the Ordinary - in other words, the
Bishop of Mailapur or his Vicar-General - for the administration of
the sacraments. 55 So Propaganda Fide confirmed the ruling laid down
by Lord William Bentinck, the Protestant Governor of Madras.
90
In spite of this rigorous and sensible guidance from Rome, Father

Giovanni Battista continued to protest that he was entirely in the right
in all matters. Many people thought he was protesting too much.
There was another explosion of wrath from Mailapur when the Vicar-
General complained to the Archbishop of Goa about a scandalous
letter he had received from the Capuchin monastery. The Vicar-
General thought it had been written by the offending priests, but
Giovanni Battista calmly said it had been written on behalf of the
Confraternity of the Rosary, and he revealed that it alleged, among
other shocking things, that the Vicar-General was a sodomite. And
Giovanni Battista also said the Vicar-General had been wrong to
accept Eustachio in his jurisdiction when he had been suspended by
his own prefect. 56 Few people could have been convinced by this latest
tirade from the Capuchin monastery.
By now there was a new Bishop in Pondichery, Bishop Hebert,
who proffered some conciliatory advice. If Father Eustachio had
done well or ill, he said, let those judge him who wanted to do so. As
for himself, he thought that if Father Eustachio had done well he
should be praised, and if he had done ill he should still be left where
he was because this meant that the Christians who accepted him as
their priest would remain in the Faith. Without Eustachio they
would probably lapse into apostasy because they had been so
irritated by the insulting behaviour of the Capuchin Prefect and
Superior. 57
This was also Bishop Alcantara's view after he had investigated the
disputes between Fidele and the lay Confraternities. It had begun with
an argument about the music for Holy Thursday, but Fidele's
behaviour had provoked a disturbance. Then he cited the Con-
fraternities in the court - a Protestant law court, explained Alcantara
in horror. The result was that they were fined. So they went to the
chapel which Father Eustachio had established in a warehouse and
which was already attended by a number of low-caste Catholics. This
was awkward, thought Alcantara. They refused to return, and so he
ruled that as an indulgence they could continue to worship in
Eustachio's new chapel. Bishop Alcantara had had enough experience
of assertive low-caste Catholics in Bombay. But the irascible Father
Giovanni Battista strongly objected. Bishop Alcantara was merely
appeasing rebels, he said, so that they would not become Protestants.
But they were virtually Protestants anyway because they wanted to
choose their own priests, and it was Eustachio who had encouraged
them to be so rebellious. 58
91
Alcantara carefully looked into the personal conflicts that had

troubled the Capuchin mission, and concluded that ambition was the
cause. His solution was simple. He persuaded Giovanni Battista to
resign, and appointed Fidele Prefect in his place. In Fidele's former
place as Superior he appointed a recently arrived missionary, Father
Lorenzo, who was already at loggerheads with both Giovanni Battista
and Fidele. Alcantara reported triumphantly to Propaganda Fide that
Lorenzo was now on good terms with both of them. 59
Other problems were soon revealed as Alcantara pursued his
enquiries. Fidele had also offended some other Catholics, who
thought he was going to close their church, and they cited him in
the courts. He admitted to Alcantara that he threatened to close their
church, but this was only because he thought it would make them
more submissive. His threat, however, had the opposite effect. The
case was still in progress, and it had already cost the mission 4,000
pagodas and the parishioners 5,000 pagodas in legal fees. However,
the Chief Justice found in Fidele's favour in his case against the
Syndics, to the extent that the funds were to be deposited in the East
India Company's treasury, the interest being paid to the mission and
the accounts to be rendered to the Judge in Equity.
As time went on Alcantara found that it was going to be more
difficult than he had thought to moderate the passions of the
Capuchins. Giovanni Battista seemed to be aware that his nature was
not too gentle, and that he sometimes lost his temper, but he claimed
that this was only when people were sinful. Fidele preached with fire
and vehemence, but said it was necessary because people were so
corrupt. Alcantara found that he was imperious and insulting towards
people who opposed him. Such a defect would normally have
disqualified anyone from being Prefect, but Alcantara had already
appointed him, and explained that there was no one else except Father
Lorenzo, who was young and apt to fly into transports of anger
accompanied by violence. All Alcantara could do was advise the
Capuchins to be peaceful and united among themselves and friendly
in manner towards other Catholics. He also prohibited the teaching of
Italian to English ladies - or gentlemen for that matter - on the
ground that it served no useful purpose from the viewpoint of the
Capuchin mission. 6o Such reasonable advice would have improved the
affairs of the mission if it had been followed. But Fidele, now Prefect,
was contemptuous of such well-meaning words. Privately he
dismissed Alcantara as weak, timid and perplexed: he himself would
have recommended harsh measures. 61
92
When he examined the Capuchins' relations with Mailapur

Alcantara found to his relief that one of the offending priests had
already submitted to the Portuguese Vicar-General before he arrived,
and he soon persuaded the other to do likewise. They said they had
neither written nor signed the scandalous letter, but he noted quietly
that one of them had read the draft through and made some
corrections. Characteristically, Alcantara left it at that. As Propa-
ganda Fide had ruled, he told the Capuchins that they were
responsible to the Ordinary - the Bishop of Mailapur, or in his
absence his Vicar-General - for the administration of the sacraments.
Although this was a correct statement of Catholic law and practice,
Father Fidele resented it as weakness. Alcantara, however, was not
looking for confrontations but for peaceable solutions to the
Capuchins' problems. He told Propaganda Fide that the atmosphere
of their monastery seemed to be more secular than religious. Every
day the Capuchins' table was more sumptuous than it should have
been, and they dined off gold plates. But as their guest, he remarked,
he was not in a position to protest.
One day when he was in Madras he was approached by some Irish
Catholic soldiers with a memorial. This document began in a
democratic style: 'Having by the common consent been chosen out
of our Brethren and Comrades at Arms to stand as the Head Men or
representatives of the whole Body of the Irish Catholic soldiers now in
the garrison of Fort St. George.' They asked for a priest to preach to
them in English at least once a month. The East India Company's
practice was to appoint a French or Italian missionary to act as
chaplain to the Catholic soldiers in a town: as the Mass was in Latin
this was realistic. 62 Lieutenant William O'Reilly confirmed the lack of
priests with a knowledge of English. He himself knew the Vicar-
General of Mailapur was 'a very respectable and well-informed
priest'. He used to visit him regularly, and often met some of his
clergy. Most of them were Goanese Eurasians and the young
lieutenant thought they seemed indolent. None could speak English;
some could manage a little 'very bad French'. So both Bishop
Alcantara and Lieutenant O'Reilly wrote to Bishop Poynter in
London to urge him to find English-speaking missionaries for India,63
but such missionaries were hard to find.
Another problem was that the Capuchins continued to offend
Indian Catholics in spite of Alcantara's efforts. In August 1822, the
Confraternities again asked for Father Eustachio, both as their priest
and as Superior. Fidele and Lorenzo had upset them. But they
93
withdrew their complaint a few months later, in November, saying it

had been prompted by Saquis Satur, the choirmaster, with Father
Eustachio's approval. 64 Satur was an orphan who had been brought
up by the Capuchins. Father Lorenzo later commented sourly that
although he was the choirmaster he had lived with no less than five
married women. 65 This was not the end of the story. In the following
year another complaint was made against the Capuchins. This time it
was more serious, for it was sent direct to Propaganda Fide. Some
laymen describing themselves as the 'Directors of the Roman Catholic
chapel' and as 'deputed by the community', stated that Capuchin
funds had been squandered by the expenses of the legal cases the
missionaries had started, and also by general mismanagement. 66
Eventually, Propaganda Fide decided on some remedial action.
Eustachio and Lorenzo were ordered back to Italy in 1824, and three
new Capuchin missionaries were sent out to Madras. 67 Some people
thought this was not enough. From London, Bishop Poynter advised
that the Madras mission should be put under a Vicar Apostolic, and
he mentioned that some people there would have liked Bishop
Prendergast. 68 The venerable Abbe Dubois, who had returned to Paris
to take charge of the seminary of the Missions Etrangeres, warned of
the danger that the Methodists would take advantage of the scandals
in the Madras mission. 69 Subsequent events suggested that there
would have to be more radical changes. Even the courtesies of daily
life seemed to be lacking.
The Fishers of the Rayapuram church were still dissatisfied with
Giovanni Battista's manners, and the Portuguese Vicar-General sent
them a Goanese priest instead. The Parchery church members
complained to the Vicar-General, and he appointed an Indian priest.
The Portuguese Vicar-General repeatedly stepped in at times of crisis.
Time and again he appointed Goanese or Indian priests instead of the
Europeans whose manners seemed offensive to lower-class congrega-
tions?O But Father Eustachio remained popular. Some high-caste
Catholics asked Propaganda Fide to let him stay as he was the only
Capuchin who could speak Tamil. This meant that he could hear
confessions intelligibly.71 Another group of Indians told Giovanni
Battista that most missionaries were 'useful only to the hat-wearing
people because they have not learned our language nor do they look
after us'. But Eustachio was different, and should stay in Madras. If
not, many Catholics would no longer look for spiritual guidance to
the Capuchin mission.72 Significantly, Eustachio appealed to high and
low castes alike.
94
After Fidele's death in 1824, Giovanni Battista resumed charge of

the mission as Vice-Prefect, and in accordance with the orders from
Rome he told Lorenzo to go. In Lorenzo's place as Superior he
appointed the elderly Father Onorato, now back in Madras and
apparently a reformed character after his adventures in various parts
of India disguised as a Muslim merchant. But Lorenzo refused to
leave, and joined with the three new missionaries in an attempt to
unseat Giovanni Battista and Onorato. They sent Giovanni Battista a
memorandum beginning solemnly but misleadingly: 'In the name of
the Sacred Congregation .. .' ('In nomine della Sacra Congregazione
di Propaganda Fide in virtu della quale diciamo ... '). Claiming the
authority of Propaganda Fide they refused to recognise Giovanni
Battista's authority, insisted on Eustachio's recall to Italy, and opposed
the nomination of Onorato as Superior because they detested him
('noi detestiamo'). In spite of these unchristian emotions, they ended
their memorandum with a pious Biblical quotation: 'I have seen the
unrighteous exalted like the cedars of Lebanon' ('Vidi impium
exaltatum sicut cedros Libani,).73
Eustachio quickly provided Propaganda Fide with some back-
ground information to explain this startling development. Two of the
new missionaries had been imprisoned for drunken and disorderly
behaviour before they were sent out to Madras, and one was so simple
that he was easily dominated by the others. 74 There was probably
some truth in this explanation. It was a convenient but ultimately
disastrous expedient to find posts in foreign missions for unruly or
incompetent priests. Propaganda Fide had already noted that this was
an unfortunate aspect of Capuchin administration. There was a
similar problem in British imperial history: influential families would
sometimes dispose of disreputable or incompetent relatives by finding
posts for them in the colonies, though not in India, where the East
India Company insisted on a reasonable level of competence.
At this crucial point, Giovanni Battista found a new ally in another
elderly Capuchin, Father Felice, who suddenly arrived in Madras
from Pondichery, where he had had some difficulties with the French
authorities. Felice and Onorato promised their support, and Giovanni
Battista appealed for help to the Portuguese Vicar-General of
Mailapur, who came to the Capuchin monastery to see for himself.
When he arrived, the four rebellious priests had left the monastery for
the day, perhaps to avoid meeting him. Two in fact went to give
evidence in the Supreme Court in a case brought against them by the
Confraternities, and the other two spent an interesting day at
95
Rayapuram, where they found a number of potentially rebellious

Fishers. The four came back to the monastery together in the evening,
after the Vicar-General had gone, but there were policemen at the
door who refused to let them in. Lorenzo was vexed to see the three
old priests, as he called them, standing on the balcony looking down
on the scene and laughing. With them he saw his old enemy Saquis
Satur, the choirmaster, together with some other laymen. The arrival
of the police at the monastery door had drawn a crowd, and various
Fishers were among the fascinated spectators. 75
The Fishers of Rayapuram quickly rallied to Lorenzo's support.
Their caste headmen signed a petition in faulty but graphic English
which described the scene in dramatic terms. Lorenzo and his
colleagues had been 'left destitute in the middle of the street with such
what they had on their body' [sic]. It was 'a scandle [sic] without any
example'. There were also some familiar accusations about sexual
immorality. Eustachio was called 'a priest of most notorious character
and father of many children', and Giovanni Battista was said to have
spent money on 'certain lewd females,?6 In fact, for many years
Giovanni Battista had tried to rehabilitate some low-caste women
dedicated to prostitution by supplying them with the necessities of
life, and he had settled some Paria families on a plot of land he owned,
where he wanted to build a chapel. As Superior, Lorenzo had always
refused to contribute to such a scheme, which he dismissed as puerile.
Lorenzo then prosecuted Giovanni Battista in the courts, and
Giovanni Battista excommunicated him on the ground that it was
forbidden to prosecute a priest in a secular court. In fact the court
found in Giovanni Battista's favour, and Lorenzo and the three young
priests had to apologise to him. Once again he told Lorenzo to go to
Italy, another of the priests he sent to Pondichery, and a third to
Chandranagar, leaving Father Gregorio in Madras, where he dutifully
began to learn Tamil. 77 At last Giovanni Battista had disposed of his
rivals, and a young Capuchin had begun the arduous task of studying
Tamil. Was this a turning point in the tumultuous history of the
Capuchin mission in Madras?
In Rome, the Capuchin Cardinal Micara advised Propaganda Fide
to recall Giovanni Battista, whom he blamed for the mission's
troubles. The Cardinal thought the mission should be headed by
someone more moderate and prudent. 78 But from London Bishop
Bramston reported that Englishmen with a knowledge of Madras had
formed a different impression of Giovanni Battista: they said he was a
good man but was now weakening in body and mind because of old
96
age. These Englishmen said the cunning and avaricious Lorenzo was
the real problem?9 However, Lorenzo ignored the repeated orders
that arrived from Rome that he must return to Italy at once. He was
now acting as priest to the mainly low-caste congregation of the
Parcheria church which functioned under the Vicar-General of
Mailapur. He lived apart from the Capuchin mission, and eventually
set up in practice as a physician.
In 1831 the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide held a
difficult meeting in the Quirinale in the presence of Pope Gregory
XVI, who as Cardinal Cappellari had been their Prefect. The
problems of Madras were exhaustively discussed, and it was noted
that in Bombay the Carmelites behaved better, so that the British
authorities seemed to support them, whereas in Madras they ignored
the Capuchins. It was agreed that the Capuchins might eventually
have to be replaced. For the time being it was suggested that an
English priest could be sent to Madras as Vicar Apostolic and Bishop
in partibus. Such a personage could reform the Capuchin mission and
gain the confidence of the British authorities. 8o But English priests
who were approached seemed reluctant to accept the poisoned
chalice. The Benedictine Dom Poulden, for instance, hastily pleaded
ill health. (He later went to Australia, where he lived to a ripe old age
as Archbishop of Sydney.)
Meanwhile, Father Gregorio set about his duties enthusiastically,
although his enthusiasm unfortunately extended to the lavish
spending of mission funds. Father Felice proved to be an irritable
colleague, but he was a man of energy and soon collected enough
money to build a new church at Vepery. Father Luigi, another new
arrival, soon upset Father Gregorio so much that he offered his
resignation on three occasions, but Father Giovanni Battista refused
to accept it. At one point Giovanni Battista nerved himself to tell Luigi
to leave Madras, but when Luigi humbly apologised he relented.
Such forgiveness seemed unwise, for during the solemnities of
Easter Sunday some of the Parias were so infuriated by Luigi's
rudeness that they nearly killed him, according to the Presidents of the
lay Confraternities. On the same day one of the Presidents said he had
been publicly insulted by Luigi in church. He complained to Giovanni
Battista, who rebuked Luigi, but the Confraternity Presidents later
complained that Luigi was meddling in their affairs. On another
occasion Luigi left the altar where he was saying Mass and interrupted
the choirmaster who was conducting the singing of a Confraternity
Mass in a side chapel where Father Gregorio was officiating as
97
Confraternity Director. The Confraternity Presidents appealed to

Rome and asked that Luigi should be recalled to ltaly.81
Looking at the events of these controversial decades one can see
some significant patterns. As in Bombay the churches of Madras, with
the encouragement of the East India Company, had developed strong
organisations of Indian and Eurasian Catholic laity. The Capuchins,
especially those fresh from Italy, had great difficulty in speaking on
equal terms with laymen on church affairs. So there were these many
complaints of rudeness and worse on the part of priests towards
laymen. The majority of Catholics were of low caste, and eager to
assert their opinions in church matters. At least in church precincts
they had no intention of conforming to the submissive behaviour
patterns expected of their Hindu counterparts according to the
traditional stereotypes. The most outspoken, the Fishers, were not
only strong in numbers but had substantial resources and contributed
generously to church expenses. They also had the support of the
Marine Board in view of their decisive role in the running of the
harbour.
Matters of music, and specifically the role of the choirmaster,
loomed large in these controversies. Next to the priest the choirmaster
had the major part in directing religious ceremonial, and Indian
choirmasters had a natural preference for, and expertise in, the
plainsong chants that were more akin to Indian music than the
polyphony that young priests fresh from Europe would have liked to
impose. There were also controversies between priests and lay
confraternities. The fact that few of the Capuchins had much
knowledge of Tamil, or English, increased the difficulties of
communication between European priests and Indian and Eurasian
laymen.
In Rome the news from Madras now seemed so disturbing that it
was agreed to appoint Alcantara to make another visitation. Wearily
he set out again for Madras: he was now 75 years old. But he was
always optimistic, and he was soon reporting happily to Propaganda
Fide that the Capuchins had accepted his authority and were now at
peace with each other. Only Lorenzo lived on his own, still earning his
living as a physician. Alcantara had been urged to seek the help of the
British authorities in expelling Lorenzo and ordering rebellious
Christians to submit to the Capuchin mission instead of to the
Vicar-General of Mailapur. But he explained carefully to Propaganda
Fide that this would be unwise. The British were unlikely to expel
anyone who had never committed a crime, nor did they want to
98
interfere in religious matters. He added that if Christians obeyed their

priests through force instead of love they would be bad Christians. 82
One may hope that this sage advice was noted in Rome.
Finance was the main difficulty for Alcantara. Apart from the main
Capuchin funds which were held in the government treasury, the
priests themselves each held some money in their own hands - one
had over 5,000 rupees, another 1,200, a third 500. Alcantara tried to
persuade them to pay all this into the funds of the mission, but they
refused point blank, arguing, perhaps reasonably, that each of them
needed to keep his own savings intact so that he could pay for his
passage back to Italy when he finally retired. Soon enough their
prudence was justified.
At last, in 1834, Propaganda Fide found a Bishop for Madras -
Father Daniel O'Connor, who had been Provincial of the Irish
Augustinians. He was duly appointed Vicar Apostolic and told to take
over the Capuchin mission. No reference was made to Goa or
Mailapur.83 A similar reticence was preserved about costs. When he
mentioned the matter, he was told that no funds were available for the
expenses of his travel or of those of the six priests he planned to take
with him. The Madras mission was said to be rich and should pay.84 A
simple man, Bishop O'Connor refrained from pressing the point. He
approached the East India Company and the Board of Control, but
without success. 85 In the end, the Pope himself authorised payment,
but Connor was asked to pay it back after he reached Madras. 86 In
Madras, however, he was soon involved in many problems.
O'Connor arrived in Madras in 1835 with five priests and two
student priests. 87 He soon made his presence felt by asking what
support the British government should be giving to Roman Catholic
interests. This was an opportune moment for him, as recently there
had been some sympathetic though imprecise comment from the
President of the Board of Control in answer to questioning from the
radical nationalist O'Connell in Parliament at the time of the
discussions that preceded the renewal of the East India Company's
charter in 1833. Bishop O'Connor similarly received sympathetic but
imprecise responses from the Madras Governor and his colleagues. But
the influential Protestant journal the Friend of India asked why the
Roman Catholics should be favoured any more than the Nonconfor-
mists? In fact they were already more favoured: for example, Roman
Catholic priests who acted as military chaplains were given special
stipends, although nothing like this was done on behalf of
Nonconformists. 88
99
O'Connor also tried to extend his authority over padroado

churches. In view of the difficulties between Lisbon and the Vatican,
the Pope had refrained from appointing Portuguese Bishops to vacant
padroado dioceses in India. The Portuguese authorities reacted by
appointing episcopal governors for the time being. O'Connor went to
see Father Manoel de Ave Maria, the episcopal governor of Mailapur,
and asked him to hand over St John's and the Parchery churches. As
O'Connor could not speak Portuguese he read out a prepared
statement in Latin. At the end of it he thought optimistically that it
had had an excellent effect. According to him, the episcopal governor
'seemed much pleased'. In fact he had probably smiled politely. But
nothing happened. Father Manoel regretted that his state of health
made it impossible for him to return O'Connor's visit. He sent the
Principal of his seminary instead, and there was an inconclusive
discussion. O'Connor unwisely said how difficult it was for Father St
Leger to deal with churches in Bengal which came under the authority
of Mailapur. But surely Father St Leger had been too hasty? This
response was only too justifiable. A hot-tempered Irishman, Father St
Leger was acknowledged by many to have been indeed too hasty. The
general question of the padroado churches in Madras would have to
be referred to Lisbon. O'Connor gradually realised that his tactics
were less convincing than he had first thought: 'I reasoned and argued
in vain.' He was soon exasperated: 'It is really provoking to perceive
the obstinacy and calmness with which they talk of the matter. ,89
In fact, O'Connor's right to the padroado churches was not as clear
as he seemed to assume. His claim to St John's was soon challenged.
The 'Gentlemen Directors' of the church held a meeting with Father
Manoel, the episcopal governor, who pointed out that John di Monte
and his family had given it to the see of S. Thome, not the Capuchin
mission. Moreover, Bishop O'Connor was only Vicar Apostolic of the
Capuchin mission, not of the padroado churches. 90 These were strong
arguments, and they were put shrewdly, with reference to Indian
realities. When Father Manoel died in 1836 O'Connor announced
that he now had jurisdiction over Mailapur and its churches. The
Madras government referred this to the Government of India, which
obligingly commented that it was preferable for ecclesiastical
authority to be exercised 'by a British-born subject rather than by
Prelates of foreign extraction' .91
The Madras government had recently had some difficulty with a
French priest whom they had appointed as a military chaplain. When
some Drummers and Fifers of the 19th Native Infantry were ordered
100
to play at a Hindu festival in Mysore, the Abbe Beauclair protested to

the Colonel, and added indiscreetly that the colonel had been off
hunting at the time.92 Colonel Dalgairns replied mildly that 'as a
member of the English Church' he himself would 'not hesitate to
attend any of these festivals'. Besides it was 'the duty of every soldier
to obey the orders of his superior right or wrong'. Disobedience might
be severely punished. 'I must therefore dear Sir beg of you to have the
goodness not to impress on the minds of the Catholic Drummers and
Fifers of the 19th regiment that insubordinate conduct under the
cloak of Religion will be tolerated in any way. It may indeed tend to
their being discharged the service and you will have to answer for
their being thrown on the wide world.'93 But the Abbe Beauclair
ignored this appeal and complained to the G.O.C., Mysore
Division. 94 The G.O.c. promptly referred the matter to the
government, which proceeded to criticise both sides. The suave
Dalgairns was told that it was 'much to be regretted' that he had been
so 'indiscreet' as to enter into correspondence with 'the priest
Beauclair' on a question related to regimental discipline. On the
other hand, Beauclair was told that if he interfered again he would not
be allowed to live on any military station. 95
To O'Connor's great vexation, a successor to Father Manoel soon
arrived - Dom Antonio Texeira. After surveying the troubled scene of
Madras and Mailapur Don Antonio pointed out that he was the
Bishop-elect pending Papal approval, and until that approval arrived
he would function as the episcopal governor. O'Connor denounced
him as a usurper, but Lord Elphinstone, the Madras Governor, was
vaguely worried when he heard that he was to receive a delegation of
'schismatics' as he called them, who wanted to protest against
O'Connor's declarations and the government's support of them. He
appealed for advice to the Governor-General, Lord Auckland. 96
Auckland was also vaguely worried. He had gone into the details of
the padroado question shortly after his arrival as Governor-General,
but it was now two years later, and the troublesome details had
escaped his aristocratic memory. However he had a feeling that there
was something 'awkward' about it all. It was best to let such matters
go to the law courtS. 97 What was awkward was that whatever British
Judges or Collectors or Propaganda Fide said, the padroado priests
took their orders from the Archbishop of Goa, who ignored all
statements from Rome that lacked the approval of the Portuguese
government. Like other Vicars apostolic, Bishop O'Connor soon
found this out.
101
The Capuchins gradually left, some more readily than others.

Many people disliked O'Connor's harsh way with laggards. He told
Father Luigi to leave within five days: 'It is totally impossible to
provide for you in this mission of Madras owing to your ignorance of
the necessary languages in this country, that is Tamil and English.
Furthermore, whilst I have not sufficient sustenance for the Priests
that are come with me from Europe it is not expected that I can
maintain a person who is useless.' But O'Connor's critics said Father
Luigi could preach in Portuguese, which was understood by three-
quarters of the parishioners of the Capuchin church, while
O'Connor's Irish priests knew neither Portuguese nor Tamil. 98
O'Connor, on the other hand, though that Luigi had been a disruptive
influence in Madras. The people were 'amiable, and capable of being
formed to any good', he told Cardinal Weld, an influential and
congenial English figure in Vatican circles. But they could readily be
perverted by a disobedient priest like Father Luigi: 'his conduct was
exceedingly provoking'. O'Connor asked the Cardinal to use his
influence to ensure that Luigi never returned to Madras. The kind-
hearted Giovanni Battista, on the other hand, gave Luigi a testimonial
to the effect that no one had ever found fault with his moral conduct,
and that he had served the mission well. But it soon emerged that the
Capuchins were not the only difficulty. Several of O'Connor's Irish
priests seemed to be very troublesome. And they were as quarrelsome
as the Capuchins. There was the Reverend Page, who soon left on
grounds of ill health. O'Connor was not sorry: 'He made himself very
disagreeable to me from the moment of his arrival in Madras.' Then
there was the Reverend Dinan, who had moral problems, but he
eventually 'returned to a sense of his duty'. O'Connor's main support
was the Reverend Moriarty - 'an active missionary and a good
Preacher, for which he is wellliked,.99
But some of O'Connor's critics, who described themselves as 'poor
Indians', asked what was the point of preaching in English when
seven-eighths of the Catholics of Madras spoke only Portuguese or
Tamil. They also objected to O'Connor's liturgical changes. There was
no High Mass even on Sundays. There were no novenas for the lay
Confraternities, no processions and no exposition of relics. Even the
crucifix had been removed from the pulpit. The 'native part of the
community' were said to be 'much displeased and discontented' by the
spartan style of religion that the Irish had introduced in Madras. 10o
In these matters Bishop O'Connor and his Irish priests ran true to
form. It was a long-established tradition, not only in Ireland but in
102
other parts of the British Isles for Roman Catholics to behave as much
like Protestants as they could, not only in liturgical ceremonies but
also in dress. Later on, the Ultramontane fashions introduced by the
Oratorians were to elicit excited horror in staid Victorian London. At
this time, however, the Protestant style of dress favoured by O'Connor
and his Irish priests was customary in Britain, but not in India. The
Bishop of Pondichery complained to O'Connor about the Reverend
Dinan's clothes. He wore a cutaway coat and trousers, which Indians
thought very immodest. O'Connor tried to explain in nationalistic
terms that Dinan wore a soutane on church premises, but 'when he
went abroad, like the rest of us, British and Europeans, he wore the
same European dress worn by Priests and Bishops in England, Ireland
and Scotland'.
O'Connor then produced the rationale familiar enough in Britain.
'We know that the dress of the European Priest considerably facilitates
his ministry among his countrymen and affords him access to society
which he would not have in his ecclesiastical dress, and which, if
properly availed of, must produce the greatest advantage to religion.'
O'Connor misleadingly spoke of European priests. In fact he was
referring to the handful of Irish priests he had brought with him. Apart
from this his argument was almost entirely fallacious. The spectacle of
Papists aping Protestants elicited contempt among the British in India.
The respect for Catholic priests that O'Connor craved was readily
conferred by the British on such traditional Italians as Archbishops
Alcantara and Saverio. O'Connor also dismissed the notion that the
soutane was preferred by Indians. Indian ideas were of no importance.
There was no need to 'accommodate ourselves to the fancies of the
Heathen'. After all, why should 'the Natives' be shocked at European
manners 'when we are obliged to tolerate so much in them?,lOl
On the other hand, the Abbe Dubois, now Director of the Seminary
of the Missions Etrangeres in Paris, warned Propaganda Fide that
O'Connor was mistaken in thinking he could treat Indian Catholics as
if they were Irish. Indian Catholics dearly loved the traditional
ceremonies which O'Connor had disregarded. 102 In Madras, Indian
reactions confirmed this. The Directors of St John'S complained to
Propaganda Fide against the secular dress of Bishop O'Connor and his
Irish priests. In contrast, the Italian Capuchins and the Portuguese
Augustinians always wore religious dress and their 'very garb and
appearance infused veneration and confidence,103 A group of high-
caste Catholics asked for Jesuits who could speak Tamil instead of
Irish priests who devoted their attention to Irish soldiers. Indian
103
Catholics followed Indian customs, they said: women never sat down
with men in church, and no Indian Catholic wore shoes there. This
was not merely an Indian custom: it was God's command, they added,
and they cited some texts from the Old Testament. 104
Besides disregarding Indian protocol, Bishop O'Connor made
other changes which offended Indian tastes more dramatically. In the
principal Catholic church, which O'Connor called his cathedral, he
assigned separate areas for Europeans and Indians in European dress,
on the one hand, and Indians in their usual dress on the other. These
Indians included Pari as, and high-caste Tamils, who objected to being
placed with Parias, and were collecting money for a separate church.
Bishop Clement Bonnard of Pondichery warned that if O'Connor did
not provide their new church with a priest they would appeal to the
episcopal governor of Mailapur. 105 Significantly, the troubles began
when O'Connor divided the Cathedral church into two separate
areas. When there was no separation no one had worried. O'Connor
replied that only the high-castes objected to the new arrangements,
and there were relatively few of them. As things were, the Pari as were
complaining of high-caste arrogance, and might go over to the
padroado if they were dissatisfied. 106
One high-caste Catholic tried to broaden the argument. Indian
Catholics disliked the layman's dress of Irish priests, he said, and they
sadly missed the traditional festivals and processions. It was as if
Bishop O'Connor was trying to obliterate the difference between
Catholics and Protestants as much as the difference between high
castes and Parias. This was a shrewd point: Roman Catholic priests in
Britain did in fact try to behave unobtrusively, as if they were
Protestants. Then the Reverend Moriarty, now O'Connor's Vicar-
General, had some discussion with a senior French priest in
Pondichery and as a result divided the Indian part of the Cathedral
into a high-caste area and a low-caste area. So the Cathedral's
congregation was now segregated into three parts. But Mr Meyer, an
Eurasian hostile to the high castes, who had suggested the original
segregation, then encouraged the Parias to protest against being
divided from the high castes. O'Connor thereupon cancelled the new
arrangement, leaving only the two separate areas. Then some Parias,
with Meyer's encouragement, mingled with the high castes during
Mass. The result was that some 80 high-caste families withdrew to a
padroado church. 107
The Fishers were another group who were disturbed by O'Connor's
methods. The Fisher church at Rayapuram now boasted more than
104
2,000 parishioners, and was an important target. O'Connor asked the

padroado priest there to let him say Mass. But after he had said Mass
he suspended the priest and lent his support to some substantial
Fishers who wanted to displace the existing headmen who were
faithful adherents of the padroado. He then applied to the
government for the church funds to be placed under his control,
stating that his application had the support of all the congregation.
But some did not support him, especially the old headmen, who called
on the Marine Board for help. 108 Unwisely, O'Connor did not trouble
to wait for the government's decision. A month later he sent Moriarty
together with his leading supporters Appasamy and Poniatomby to
take possession of the church. It was locked and the priest was away,
so they broke down the door of the priest's house and established
themselves there. The priest promptly prosecuted them for trespass,
and they were found guilty and fined. 109
As the Syndics were now divided, the government refused to
authorise any payments from church funds until they were
unanimous. The priest himself was therefore unpaid for two years.
This troubled most of the Fishers and their supporters in the Marine
Board. So it was comparatively easy for O'Connor to persuade the
government to release some funds to pay the priest. The church was
therefore transferred from the padroado. But as there was still no
agreement among the Fishers, the government refused payment of
further sums for festivals and other church purposes. However,
O'Connor and the Irish priests were not greatly troubled by the
absence of colourful and exciting festivals.
When Moriarty went to Rome in 1838 he tried to convince
Propaganda Fide that O'Connor's doings were right and proper. There
had been disputes in the Madras mission long before O'Connor's
arrival, he said. O'Connor also had disputes, but he was opposed by
different factions who were moved by 'a spirit of national jealousy'
('uno spirito di gelosia nazionale'). He was referring to the Portuguese
and the French. But O'Connor had made many improvements,
especially in education. Before O'Connor arrived, said Moriarty,
religion had been a matter of ceremonial, and the Catholics of Madras
had attached too much importance to processions and such thingsYo
Successful or not O'Connor was tiring. He asked repeatedly for a
coadjutor Bishop to help him, and in 1839 Bishop Carew arrived. At
first he was full of praise for O'Connor's achievements. Of course
O'Connor had been helped by the final breach between Rome and
Lisbon in 1838, and had quickly proclaimed himself Vicar Apostolic
105
of S. Thome of Mailapur. This had a notable effect on Catholic

congregations. But as the padroado priests disregarded Papal orders
that had not been countersigned by the Portuguese government, they
themselves carried on as before. Carew noted that in 1839 there were
still 28 padroado priests in Madras and Mailapur but only half that
number under the Vicar Apostolic. l l l Carew thought that he himself
was capable of great things. Six months after his arrival in Madras he
told Propaganda Fide how much he had done in such a short time. He
had reconciled the high castes who had left the Cathedral church
because of O'Connor's seating arrangements. He had also settled
dissensions elsewhere. How he did not say. He then reported that
O'Connor wanted to resign, and had begun to speak of plots against
him. Apparently he had formed the strange notion that Bishop Carew
was ambitious and wanted his placey2 Soon he lost his reason and
was escorted back to Ireland, leaving Bishop Carew firmly in charge.
But Carew soon found that the energy he thought he could
contribute to Catholic affairs in Madras was not entirely what was
needed. Neither he nor O'Connor seemed to understand the strength
of anti-Catholic feeling among many officials. On one occasion the
Reverend Doyle was involved in controversy with a new Sheriff of
Madras. Patrick Keating, a prisoner in the town gaol, complained that
the Reverend Doyle had been interrupted during Mass: 'We was [sic]
ashamed when we were serving Mass this morning to be compeld [sic]
to Disperse on account of the Doctor visiting the Gaol we feel very
uneasy to be deprived of those comforts for unnecessary causes.'l13
The gaoler told him that no one could now visit prisoners without the
new Sheriff's express permission. Hitherto, Catholic priests had been
admitted without question. The Bishop duly approached the Sheriff,
who replied that he did not consider himself bound by the acts of his
predecessors. He himself would not allow Catholic priests to visit the
gaol as a matter of routine. If a prisoner made a special application for
a visit, a time could be appointed. 114 This seemed to rule out regular
Masses in the gaol, and the Bishop appealed to the Governor-in-
Council, who approached the Chief Justice. However, the Chief
Justice replied that he could do nothing, as the Sheriff had full
discretion in managing the gaol. 115
Carew's tact was soon found wanting. The Reverend Doyle asked
that the Madras government should supply 'prayer books and other
moral books' to Roman Catholic soldiers just as Protestant soldiers
were supplied with the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. 1 16 This
request was referred to the Government of India, which rejected it,
106
adding that the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer were supplied
in accordance with Queen's Regulations. 117 This prompted an
outburst from Bishop Carew to the effect that if the Irish clergy in
India did not feel confident that their religious grievances would be
redressed it would be their duty to appeal to their brethren in Ireland
'to raise their voices from the thousand altars at which they minister,
and dissuade their countrymen from engaging in the military service
of India'. If they made such an appeal, he concluded dramatically, 'all
the wealth of the Honourable Company would not succeed in raising
a single regiment in Catholic Ireland' .118
Lord Elphinstone, the Governor of Madras, protested politely, and
Lord Auckland, the Governor-General, hastily denied responsibility.
He claimed that he had never seen the letter from his own government
which had upset Bishop Carew. It was all very regrettable, but it was
not his fault. 'I much regret the turn which this correspondence had
taken and particularly the tone in some respects of Dr Carew's letter
which would only have arisen from a misapprehension of the
intentions of the Government of India.'119 Nevertheless, the
Commander-in-Chief stood firmly by the Regulations, and the result
was a mild assurance that in case of need 'some occasional pecuniary
assistance' might be given 'in particular cases' .120
Bishop Carew's threats even produced a mollifying response from
the Court of Directors. As a general policy, there could be no increase
in allowances to Roman Catholic chaplains. But there might be
individual cases which deserved special consideration. 121 Doyle
promptly applied for an increase in salary on the ground that he
had much to do as chaplain at Bellari. The G.O.c. agreed, and Doyle
asked that his salary of 50 rupees a month should be increased to 100
rupees. The Madras government commented sourly that Doyle's
existing salary 'would be thought liberal by the Goa Priests who have
been displaced by the British Roman Catholic clergymen'. However,
the Court of Directors settled for 75 rupees. 122
A new Irish Bishop, John Fennelly, was duly found for Madras,
while Bishop Carew and his Irish Vicar-General departed for Calcutta
- 'not without great joy' ('non sine magna laetitia'), Bishop Fennelly
commented bitterly. Soon afterwards two other Irish priests left
Madras without permission to join Carew in Calcutta. Fennelly soon
gained the impression that no one liked Madras. 123 Certainly the
government was distancing itself from Catholic affairs. The Court of
Directors ruled in 1840 that disputes about ecclesiastic jurisdiction
should henceforth be dealt with in the law courts. 124 In other words,
107
the government lost interest in such matters. The social conflicts, often
arising from caste, which had enlivened church life, would no longer
be played before the official arena, and legal costs would discourage
people from pursuing them elsewhere.
Fennelly certainly had no patience with caste in Catholic churches.
He reported that when the French Bishop of Pondichery built a new
church in 1844 he had to have a wall three feet high to separate high
castes from Parias. Fennelly concluded that such caste feelings made
Indians unsuitable as priests. But his own feelings about race were
also strong. He repeatedly urged Propaganda Fide to send out more
British priests. Europeans, he said, would not let their babies be
baptised by Indian priests. 125 On the other hand, Padre F.R. Xavier,
an Indian priest, protested against the 'distrust' aroused by Fennelly
and his Irish priests who concerned themselves with Europeans and
Eurasians and failed to observe the distinctions appropriate to high
castes, unlike French Bishops and priests. Indian priests would not eat
with European priests: this was because European priests were
friendly with 'Europeans who are mixed with low castes of India'.
He suggested the appointment of an Indian Vicar Apostolic for
Indian Catholics. This would avoid social problems: 'I got [sic]
experience of forty years, the natives are too much attached to their
caste customs.' But it seemed that caste had its advantages. He lived in
a village where there were 2,000 Indian Christians, and they never
dared to complain against him. An Indian Vicar Apostolic would
preserve social and religious peace. 126 A group of high-caste Catholics
also complained that Irish priests had no regard for caste. Bishop
Fennelly himself disregarded the proper conventions, they said: he
'began to drive the women in his coach and eat the beef.' On the other
hand, Goanese priests were 'respectable and venerable'. Five of them
were in their sixties, whereas five of the Irish priests were under 25
and another five were under 30 years old. Such priests 'with their
unbuttoned long coats' had a military rather than a religious
appearance. 127
However, the Irish were now firmly in charge in Madras. There
were no scandals, and the mission was said to be flourishing. In 1851,
the Reverend Edwards, who had returned to Ireland after eight years
in Madras, reported that customs at variance with the spirit of
Benedict XIV's policy were 'yielding to the determination of
Irishmen'. This was a reference to the ruling that whatever their
birth Christians should hear Mass and receive Communion at the
same time in the same church. Bishop Fennelly was as much respected
108
by Indian Catholics as the Bishop of Pondichery, 'surrounded by

fawning Sudras'. In fact, Fennelly still had to make use of Sudras. "Tis
true Dr Fennelly takes Sudras with him into the more remote districts,
because, thanks to previous teaching and practice, it is still necessary,
more for sake of the heathen than the Christians: but he labours
prudently, zealously and with effect to put an end to this absurd and
most uncharitable distinction.' 128
The Fishers, however, were still split. In 1867, when Appasamy in
his dual capacity of headman and Syndic, applied for the Rayapuram
church fund to be transferred from the government to the control of
the High Court this was readily agreed. The Court ruled that the
administration of the fund should remain in the hands of the four
Syndics, or Curators as they were now called, but that the choice of
priest should be decided by a majority vote of all adult parishioners.
The result was a series of disputes which cost heavy legal fees. Finally,
when the Archbishop of Goa visited Madras in 1878 Bishop Fennelly
went to see him in Mailapur and he agreed that St Peter's should
remain under the Vicar Apostolic, while another church, St Antony's
which was also favoured by some of the Fishers, should be under
Goa. 129
In 1868, after a full-scale enquiry into Indian missions conducted
by the French Bishops Bonnand and Charbonnaux it was noted that
Irish missionaries were said to be more interested in European and
Eurasian than in Indian Catholics, and to be unwilling to adjust to the
customs of the country. But the commissioners found that there were
three Irish priests in Madras who devoted great attention to Indian
Catholics. 13o Propaganda Fide finally decided that Fennelly should
increase the number of Irish missionaries, and ensure that they studied
Indian languagesyl
109
Chapter VI
French Jesuits and Caste in Tamil

Nadu
Caste was a long-standing problem for the Jesuits in the Madurai

mission. They treasured the memory of Roberto Nobili who had both
lived like a Brahman and converted some of them. But the Jesuits'
toleration of caste among Catholics was much criticised. The final
word seemed to have been spoken by Benedict XIV in 1744 when he
ordered that everyone, whatever their class, should hear Mass and
receive Communion in the same church at the same time. Jesuits
contrived a solution to this dilemma, as they saw it. Little walls
divided low from high castes, but as they were in the same church at
the same time the Jesuits could say that they all heard Mass together.
There were also separate entrances for low castes in many of their
churches. Questioned by some of the Jesuits' successors, Propaganda
Fide strongly criticised the persistence of caste among Catholics, but
conceded that it could be tolerated for the time being provided that
efforts were made to discourage it. This proviso was ignored or
forgotten when the Jesuits came back to Tamil Nadu. From their
viewpoint the most important Catholic castes were the high-status
Vellalas, mostly devoted to agriculture, the Parava Fishers, claiming
descent from converts made by the Jesuit St Francis Xavier and his
colleagues in the sixteenth century, and the toddy-tapping Shanars,
later called Nadars, many of whom claimed descent from converts
made by the Jesuit John de Britto and his colleagues in the seventeenth
century.
From a classical Hindu viewpoint the Vellalas were merely Sudras,
one of the very many clean castes belonging to this fourth group,
which ranked below Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. The Jesuits
respected their status, however, as much superior to that of low castes
like the Paravas and Shanars. Sudras in Tamil Nadu were particularly
devoted to Saiva Siddhanta, a form of Hinduism characterised by the
111
notion that Siva was accessible to the loving prayers of the devout,
without the intervention of Brahman priests. Various Jesuits were
greatly impressed by Vellalas who had specialised in the ideas and
practices of this type of devotional Hinduism, and Vellalas were
chosen by them as altar servers and catechists. This dichotomy
between high-status Vellalas and low-status Para vas and Shanars, not
to speak of even lower castes like Parias, had become firmly rooted in
Jesuit ideas by the eighteenth century, although the ideal of converting
Brahmans as Nobili had done remained a dazzling goal.
The Parava caste has attracted some scholarly attention, partly
because all its members are Roman Catholics, and partly because of
the honours conferred on the office of Parava headman from Dutch
times onwards. Traditionally fishermen and pearl divers, some took
to seaborne trade and others became weavers. When the Dutch
displaced the Portuguese they valued the services of the Paravas, not
only for the share in the profits of the pearl trade which they levied
like the Portuguese before them, but also for their help in mercantile
business, and especially with the cloth trade. The Dutch conceded
high status to the Parava headman, or Jati Talaivan. The decline in the
pearl trade which accompanied British efforts to clean and widen sea
lanes led to a temporary recession in Tuticorin, at about the time
when the Jesuits returned to Tamil Nadu. But Tuticorin soon
flourished again, as a major port in the British imperial system,
benefiting from its links with Ceylon, where some leading Parava
merchants had their headquarters. 1
When the Jesuits came back to the Madurai mission in 1837, they
came determined to maintain the traditions established by Nobili.
Essentially this meant a strict regard for caste, for an austere lifestyle
and for a sparse vegetarian diet. They would be as austere as the
Brahmans whom they saw as models for other Indians - the Brahmans
who devoted themselves to theology and metaphysics, spurning the
material satisfactions of the world. The Jesuits would be symbols, and
so would their churches. Not only would attention be drawn to the
altar on which the priest repeated Christ's sacrifice, with the help of
Vellala altar servers, but the separation between high and low castes
in the respective places they were required to occupy would reinforce
the ideal of an ordered society. The disorder of revolutionary France
had threatened religion itself. The Jesuits would have none of it in
their Indian mission field.
They found the main church in Madurai was still called the Jesuit
church, and they noted approvingly that its design enabled them to
112
FRENCH JESUITS AND CASTE IN TAMIL NADU
pay attention to caste distinctions. High castes were assigned the nave,
and low castes were separated from them by little walls. This concern
for caste extended to matters of behaviour as high castes saw it.
Father Joseph Bertrand, the Jesuit Superior, deplored the way in which
the Irish Bishop Daniel O'Connor was opposing caste in Madras.
Bertrand also said he was shocked when he saw one of O'Connor's
priests in trousers on horseback: such improper behaviour would be
deplored by Indians, and contrasted with the austere model approved
by the French Jesuits. It was unfortunate that Bishop O'Connor
claimed jurisdiction over the area to be served by the Madurai
mission. Great prudence would be necessary. Father Bertrand decided
to follow the guidance of priests of the Missions Etrangeres, who had
tried to take the place of the old Jesuits after their suppression. The
French Bishop of Pondichery offered his advice on this tricky matter,
and Bertrand gladly accepted it?
But in spite of Bertrand's precautions he soon lost control of the
Madurai church. The Goanese priest who had charge of it before the
Jesuits arrived promptly appealed to the Collector, who ruled that it
should revert to the padroado. Bertrand noted that the Collector had
been very affable, saying he would do all he could to help the Jesuits.
But he seemed to be a man of iron in adhering to his principles, and
one of his principles was that the incumbent of a church had the right
to remain there. 3 This was Bertrand's explanation. In fact this was a
logical principle for the Collector to follow. A Protestant official could
hardly be expected to eject a Goanese priest merely because of a
contested edict from Propaganda Fide.
Another reason for the Collector's strictness may well have been
the zeal of the Rev. Mehay, of the Missions Etrangeres. The Bishop of
Pondichery had unwisely assigned him to guide the Jesuits in the early
stages of their return to the Madurai mission. Mehay thought it
important to make a dynamic impact, and only eight days after they
first arrived in Madurai he publicly burnt a pile of Protestant books
under the indignant gaze of agents of the Bible Society. He repeated
this demonstration on two subsequent occasions. The police took no
action, but the young Jesuit Father Alexandre Martin, who anxiously
watched such scenes, thought that Protestants were greatly offended,
and that the Jesuits' failure to hold the Madurai church followed from
the impression that they were trouble-makers. 4
Bertrand soon concluded that it was important to conciliate the
English authorities. Indians themselves were careful to respect them.
When a few of Bertrand's colleagues became very ill, Father-General
113
Roothaan warned them against unwise austerities. The Jesuits soon

agreed that they could add a little chicken or meat to their rice: one
need not be too scrupulous in following the old Jesuit custom of
vegetarianism in order to avoid offending high-caste susceptibilities.
But they still avoided beef, and their lifestyle remained austere. 5 At the
same time, they told each other how faithful were the poor in their
religious practice. In many villages, both on the coast and inland,
people still said their morning prayers before work and recited the
Rosary in the evening. It must be the result of the teaching of the
earlier Jesuits, they thought. 6
In Trichinopoly Father Louis Garnier resolved both to make
himself useful to the British authorities and also to impress the high
castes. He built a church for Europeans and Eurasians and set up
house in the European area so as to attract British soldiers from the
jurisdiction of the Goanese priest who acted as their chaplain. He also
tried to avoid friendly behaviour towards Parias. He noted that the
English often employed Parias as servants, but he resolved that he
would only employ high castes, and he thought optimistically that as a
consequence Indians considered him to be of high caste. 7
Soon Garnier claimed that he had won from the jurisdiction of the
padroado all the high-caste Catholics of Trichinopoly - mainly
Vellalas. There were 2,000 of them. But he had not been so successful
with the Paria Catholics. Of 5,500 he could only claim 2,500. He had
already decided to keep them at a distance, but he blamed their
rebellious disposition. He drew a discouraging stereotype of them:
'savage and quarrelsome men, capable of anything' (Chommes
sauvages et belligueux, capables de tout,).8 Similar stereotypes were
fashioned for other low-caste Catholics who disagreed with mis-
sionaries - not only the Paravas of Tamil Nadu but also the
Mukkavans of Kerala.
However, the influence that Garnier had tried to gain with the
authorities did not always produce results. When he went to the
nearby Indian state of Pudukottai and asked to stay in the British
Resident's bungalow he was mortified to be told that the Resident
needed it for himself. Instead, a high-caste Catholic provided
accommodation for him in a cowshed. When the Raja heard of this
he sent him a tent and assigned him a place for it in the street reserved
for Brahmans. Then the Raja received him at court. Garnier described
the Raja as a very fat man of about 40, very dignified, in a rich but
simple dress. He spoke English adequately rassez bien'), and so did
the Brahmans in his entourage. Garnier noted smugly that Goanese
114
priests had never been allowed to enter the town of Pudukottai. Surely
the traditional Jesuit respect for caste was justified! Sepoy soldiers and
Paria Catholics in the Raja's service had been allowed to build a little
chapel outside the town, but Garnier would not enter it because if he
did so he feared that he would lose the respect of the Raja and his
Brahmans: Garnier underlined this point when he wrote to Father-
General Roothaan. In the Raja's presence the Resident handed him a
document entitling him to take possession of the church of Avur, then
under the padroado. 9
But when he went to Avur he found the church locked. There were
fifteen or twenty Parias around it and the Goanese priest seemed very
hostile. In spite of his official-looking document, Garnier could not
obtain possession of the church. So the influence he thought he had
won proved insubstantial. Then his flock at Trichinopoly, against his
wish, disrupted the Rosary festival which was being celebrated in the
padroado church. When the magistrate arrived on the scene one of
Garnier's parishioners seized the bridle of his horse and struck the
animal. The magistrate seemed alarmed, and took refuge in the
presbytery. When he tried to leave he was stopped by the crowd, and
had to stay there until some soldiers came and rescued him. Garnier
thought uneasily that the British would blame him for all this. Io
Meanwhile, at Vadakkankulam, Father Alexandre Martin was
troubled by a conflict between the Vellalas and the lower-status
Shanars, who later took the name Nadar. The young Alexandre
Martin was conscientious to a fault and kept a meticulous diary which
is of great interest today, especially for the information it contains
about his conversations with caste headmen and elders. This
particular dispute was long-standing. A Goanese priest, Padre
Miranda, had come there early in the nineteenth century to fill the
Jesuits' place, although he was operating under the padroado. He was
greatly troubled by a dispute about the annual festival of the
Assumption on 15 August. As in Hindu festivals, it was customary to
pull a cart, usually called a car in English, which bore an image or a
sacred relic - Catholic priests were untroubled by the notion that such
affairs resembled Hindu festivals because they were aware of similar
festivities in southern Europe. The problem involved rival caste claims
to festival privileges. In 1824, Padre Miranda arranged a compromise
to the effect that the Vellalas should draw the car with it statue of the
Virgin Mary while the Shanars would merely carry flags and torches.
This soon came to be resented by the Shanars, and a French priest
from Pondichery attempted another compromise, which was also
115
disliked. However, before he could do anything about this Father

Martin found that Parias were also involved in church disputes which
had a caste basis.
He arranged a catechism class by the Abbe Mousset of the Missions
Etrangeres, who had been deputed to guide him in his early forays in
Tamil Nadu. Mousset began in the nave of the church, with the various
castes sitting together - Vellalas, Shanars and Parias. Very soon the
Vellala parents told their children to leave, because of the presence of
low-caste children. Martin promptly ordered the three ring-leaders to
be excluded from church for three months. The following day he
arranged for the catechism class to be held in the Paria vestibule, and
the Vellala children attended without any more difficulty. He duly
noted in his journal that it was essential to maintain a balance between
the castes. He insisted that communion should be received by Parias
within the church, but in deference to Vellala susceptibilities they
would still be separated from the higher castes by a little wall: this
accorded with Jesuit policy in many other churches. When he returned
six months later he was confronted with a demand from various
Shanars that the division between them and the Vellalas should be
removed, or at least that the church be divided into equal halves. He
felt irritated by these 'foolish pretensions' ('{olles pretentions'), as he
saw them, and ruled that the existing division should remainY
In short, there were many caste disputes, and the Jesuits could not
avoid being involved. Soon after this Martin encountered the Parava
caste. It has recently been argued that the French Jesuits had a divisive
effect on the Para vas, exacerbating rivalries in order to increase their
own influence. 12 On the other hand, it can be argued that as with the
Vellalas, Shanars and Parias there were tensions between the Paravas
and other castes before the Jesuits arrived. And within the Parava
caste there were also disputes, some of which derived from family
rivalries. This was the view taken by Father Lorenzo Puccinelli, an
Italian Jesuit who worked in the area several years later. He thought
that Father Martin and his colleagues had been misled by rival
factions from the beginningY
Another factor was the caste headman's ambition. As early as 1818
Father Neves complained from Cochin about the headman's difficult
temperament. He was urging the Archbishop of Goa to give him
exclusive authority over all the churches on the fishery coast. If not he
threatened to transfer from the padroado to the jurisdiction of the
Vicar Apostolic. The Archbishop refused, but the tactic was often
used subsequently.14
116
When Father Martin and the Abbe Mousset first arrived in

Tuticorin, the head of the Parava caste received them with the greatest
pomp and respect, and kissed their hands. Martin though that he was
almost European in everything but dress. Martin also had some
discussion with the local Goanese priest, and noted that he had
extravagant tastes. He was already developing a critical attitude
towards Indians who did not measure up to his austere standards. 1s
Meanwhile, he decided to live at a tactful distance, some 20 miles
away from Tuticorin, at Punnayakal, but he was soon involved in
fresh problems. For a time he was even short of food, and he had to
insist that people provide him with his dues in rice. This was a real
problem in these early days when the Jesuits lacked resources. Such
difficulties encouraged him to assert his authority. Caste tensions were
another reason. At Viravanallur he was opposed by Shanars, who
objected to his insistence that Parias should be allowed into the local
church. Hitherto, they said, Parias had been accommodated in a
pandal- a shelter with a thatched roof. And they added that this had
been allowed by the Abbe Mehay, of the Missions Etrangeres. But
Martin was adamant, and threatened to excommunicate the Shanar
leaders if they refused to admit Parias into the church. The threat was
effective, but such episodes encouraged him further in his assertive-
ness. On one occasion he refused to sing High Mass, in order to show
the Paravas that priests were not coolies (Tai voulu prouver nos a
Paravas que nous ne sommes pas de coulis,}.16
Another source of tension was that Martin saw himself as a
reformer - eradicating abuses which he thought had developed since
the departure of the Jesuits in the 1770s. On one occasion he
excommunicated a man because he had played music in a Hindu
temple - in Martin's words, <Ie temple des idoles'.17 There was in fact
much co-operation between Hindus and Catholics at religious
festivals. On another occasion a local official, who happened to be
a Brahman, offered the services of his musicians to supplement the
efforts of Catholic instrumentalists at a church festival. To the
Brahman's surprise Martin refused. He noted in his diary that
Catholic musicians were always playing at Hindu festivals - as he saw
it, at devilish ceremonies «its sont sans cesse en fete pour Ie demon,).18
Martin went to Tuticorin for Easter 1839, after insisting on the
dismissal of a Goanese priest whose morals he suspected. The
headman and his son both spoke to him in favour of the dismissed
priest, and a large meeting was held at the headman's house. But
Martin tactlessly brought with him as his secretary, the person who
117
had provided him with information about the failings of the priest.
The priest's supporters concluded that his fate was sealed, and the
episode increased Martin's unpopularity. The following day the
headman suggested that Martin be paid in the same way as the
dismissed priest - by offerings at Mass, by fees for other ecclesiastical
functions and by the profit on the sale of votive candles. Martin
indignantly refused, although such remuneration was quite usual in
Europe as well as in other parts of the world. He confided to his diary
that such matters touched the authority of the prince, as he continued
to term the headman, but that he himself would always refuse to be a
slave. However, when he met the leading men of the caste, he was
careful to urge respect for the headman. Meanwhile the headman
himself behaved in a devout manner, assisting at all the services on
Good Friday and at the second Mass on Easter Sunday.
Soon Martin was demanding to see the accounts and inventories of
the church at Tuticorin. When the Church Wardens temporised he
concluded that they were being impudent, and he suspected that the
headman's son was encouraging them. He noted in his diary that the
young man was the head of a 'schismatic cabal' ('fa cabafe
schismatique') in favour of the padroado. 19 Significantly, he was
quick to condemn in doctrinal terms what was explicable more simply
as a challenge to the headman's authority by the heir apparent. What
exacerbated the matter was that Martin began to refer to those who
adhered to the padroado as 'schismatic'. The Vatican however, had
refrained from declaring that those who adhered to the padroado
were in schism, even though they questioned the validity of
documents from the Pope or from Propaganda Fide which had not
been approved by the Portuguese government.
Martin was troubled by further suspicions when he wanted to
check the church possessions against the inventory. No inventory
could be found, so in the presence of two witnesses he made a list on
the spot. He noted that the ornaments and linen were very dirty, and
he thought that one of the Church Wardens was sneering at him.
When he returned home, he was told by informants that in fact there
were three inventories, one with a Church Warden, one with the
sacristan and one in the church treasury. When he asked the headman
for the inventory, the headman replied with a number of complaints -
especially that Martin wanted to deprive him of his privileges. Martin
unwisely made a lengthy and indignant reply, in the course of which
he emphasised that he had advised people to obey their ruler, but
finished by declaring that he intended to be master in the church (un
118
maitre dans l'eglise'). One significant complaint of the headman was

that Martin wanted to entrust the church accounts to a high-caste
Vellala. Martin tactlessly replied that the Vellala was the only person
available with a knowledge of how a church building could be
properly restored. 20
When the headman's son came to see him soon afterwards, Martin
again complained of defective church accounts and again asserted his
dominance over church affairs. He had come, he said a little
pompously, 'to give laws not receive them' ('pour donner les lois, et
non pour en recevoir'). 21 After further discussion with the headman
himself Martin gradually came to understand his viewpoint. The
church had been built by the Paravas' ancestors, not by the Jesuits,
and priests had never had a right to its revenues except for Mass fees
and offerings for particular purposes. Therefore the priest had never
had the right to inspect the accounts, but merely to receive the surplus
after all expenses had been met.
Given time Martin would probably have reached a satisfactory
understanding with the headman. Martin had already come to the
conclusion that the headman needed money: pearl fishing was no
longer so profitable, and his customary profits were diminishing.
Apart from a few rich Parava merchants there was much hardship,
Martin thought. He described Tuticorin as a town that had once been
rich but was now almost beggarly - 'ville jadis fort riche, mais
aujourd'hui presque mendiante'.22 Socio-economic conditions were
reflected in the difficulties of the church, and especially in marriage
ceremonies. In April one of the headman's relatives was married. The
ceremony took place at the high altar according to custom, and a
statue of Our Lady was produced: this was a favour reserved for the
headman's family. As the bridegroom was poor and could not afford
the fee, the Mass was not sung. However, the headman himself
appeared after Mass. The following day there was another such
marriage - of 'a beggarly noble', in Martin's unkind phrase ('un noble
mendiant'). The bridegroom had married into a richer family, and on
this occasion there was a High Mass with thirty candles, honoured by
the headman's presence. In July there were three Parava marriages, all
celebrated at the altar rail. The lower-status Shanar caste had to be
content with marriages in the nave, while Parias could only be
married at the church door, Martin noted grimly in his diary.23
Soon he learnt that the church council, which in his diary he called
contemptuously the 'fishermen's synagogue' ('synogogue poissonniere')
had resolved to recall the Goanese priest who had been dismissed at
119
his insistence. This 'Judas', as Martin called him, quietly took charge
of the church and said Mass there at 5 o'clock one morning. Father
Gury, a Jesuit who had recently joined Martin at Tuticorin, went to
the church to protest but was not allowed in. He threatened them with
Hell ('vous voulez done allez en Enfer') and withdrew. Martin had to
say Mass in his room, and he soon found it difficult even to get water.
He thought he would have to leave Tuticorin, but decided to stay
when some well-wishers found him a house in which he could say
Mass. When he did say Mass there he had a congregation of nearly
400. But at the beginning of August Padre Xavier Borges, a well-
known Goanese priest, arrived in a solemn procession with a crucifix
in front. Martin called him 'antichrist'. But Borges claimed to be Vicar
Apostolic of the Fisher Coast, under the patronage of the Queen of
Portugal. 24 This might look like a category mistake, but it had great
effect at the time.
Martin found the situation had become even more embarrassing.
Here was a Goanese priest operating under the padroado in charge of
the church while he had to say Mass in a private house. He appealed
to the Collector, who sensibly advised him to make peace with the
headman. But Martin was unwilling to compromise, and the headman
told him to go. A few weeks later Father Bertrand ordered him to
leave the Fisher Coast to work in the interior. He left in October 1839
and died the following year. 25 Devout, intelligent and well-meaning,
he had become too authoritarian and his tactics had led to the return
of the padroado regime in Tuticorin.
Bertrand was alarmed at the readiness of Parava congregations to
welcome Goanese priests under the padroado, and by November it
seemed to him quite possible that the Jesuits would lose all the
churches in this area. He appealed to Bishop Clement of Pondichery.
The headman died at about this time, and Bishop Clement came to
the Fishery Coast, thinking to intervene with his successor. He
arrived in November and visited churches in the area. Most of them
opened their doors to him: this was the first time anyone could
remember that a Bishop had been there. Towards the end of 1839 he
approached Tuticorin, and found a new headman had been
appointed - Dom Jose Antonio de Cruz Vaz Paldano. Bishop
Clement spent eleven days in lengthy negotiations, and at length,
during the night of 5 January 1840, an envoy arrived with a
favourable message from the prince, as the Bishop, like Bertrand, was
careful to term the headman. They set off the following morning, and
reached Tuticorin by midday. There were large crowds, and the
120
Bishop sang High Mass. Then he returned to Pondichery, leaving

Bertrand to arrange the details.
Bertrand was not entirely happy with all this. He did not like the
way the Bishop had deferred to the headman. They had had to agree
to things which might prove irksome ('genantes,).26 For example, the
Goanese priest favoured by the headman remained in charge of the
church, under the jurisdiction of Bishop Clement. 27 However, the
Jesuits could feel they were in overall charge of the area.
Bertrand appointed a new missionary to the South - Father Alexis
Castanier. At first he seemed very successful. Bertrand reported to his
Provincial that Father Castanier's behaviour in this difficult situation
was all that could be expected. He was both prudent and firm. In fact,
the new headman's authority was not yet established. He had
succeeded as the eldest son of the former headman, but the British
authorities were slow to recognise his succession, and it was opposed
by powerful elements in the caste. The rivalries which had confused
Father Martin were still continuing. Bertrand solemnly assured his
Provincial that the Jesuits were careful not to take the least part in
these factional struggles. 28 This statement to the Provincial from the
Superior of the Mission was an unequivocal declaration of policy.
On the other hand, Bertrand encouraged various churches to resist
any attempt by the headman to exercise his authority in ecclesiastical
affairs. When the headman went on tour through the coastal villages
he proved as unwilling to tolerate opposition as his father had been.
Bertrand thought that he had terrorised the inhabitants of Punnaya-
kaya!. Once Castanier found the Goanese priest of Tuticorin saying
three Masses on an ordinary Sunday, merely because the headman had
told him to do so. Bertrand commented that this was to treat the priest
as if he were the headman's domestic servant. 29
Bertrand thought that his opportunity had come when the
headman asked him for two priests to help celebrate the patronal
festival of Our Lady of the Snows in the Tuticorin church. He refused
to send anyone, although it was customary to have three priests for a
solemn High Mass on such an occasion. He noted with satisfaction
that the result was general discontent with the headman. The
headman asked him for help again when the Goanese priest was
too ill to say Mass, but Bertrand replied coldly. Then the Goanese
priest died - without the sacraments, Bertrand noted solemnly. Once
again the headman appealed to him. Thinking that Martin's eagerness
to occupy the Tuticorin church had been a reason for his subsequent
difficulties, Bertrand pretended to be indifferent.
121
Forced by what Bertrand described as the general will ('la volante

generale'), the headman made another appeal, and Bertrand sent
Father Castanier to Tuticorin, with instructions to demand complete
freedom in the church and presbytery. The headman agreed. Then
Castanier demanded the church accounts and he also asked for
control of the church revenues. Father Martin's conversations with the
former headman on these points seemed to have been forgotten. The
headman temporised, on the ground that this was contrary to custom.
Castanier thereupon left suddenly, on the Saturday before Palm
Sunday, a particularly awkward time to go. He established himself at
Punnayakayal, where he received reports of excitement and turbu-
lence. The headman's two brothers were taking the lead in this
opposition to his authority. Castanier was told that even the
headman's wife and mother had turned against him. 3o
Castanier thought it was time to take the headman by surprise, so
he went by boat to Tuticorin. The headman had the church keys, and
tried to stop him disembarking. But a crowd collected and forced him
to hand over the keys, and Castanier took possession. After Easter the
headman made various complaints against Castanier to various
people - the Magistrate, Father Bertrand and Bishop Clement - but
without result. Then Bertrand instructed Castanier to dismiss the
church officers, who happened to be the four chief supporters of the
headman. This aroused some clamour, although Bertrand was
confident that it would improve the Jesuits' position at Tuticorin.
But the resourceful headman suddenly closed the church and gave
orders that Castanier should not be allowed in. Then Castanier's
supporters, led by the headman's two brothers, took up positions
round the church and prevented the headman's supporters from going
in. Some disorder ensued. The headman appealed to the Collector,
stating that there had been disputes ever since the Jesuits' arrival.
Father Castanier was taken to the Collector, who had him sit down
and then, in Castanier's words, subjected him to 'a flood of abuse,
sarcasm and invective against the Propagandists and against me in
particular' ('un deluge d'injures, de sarcasmes, d'invectives contre les
propagandistes, contre mai en particulier). Two days later, the
Collector, who was also the Magistrate, pronounced his judgement.
The church belonged to the Goanese priests under the padraada and
should be handed over to them. Meanwhile, the keys would be in the
headman's custody.
Castanier had to deposit 500 rupees as security for his good
behaviour, and the chief's brothers each had to deposit 250 rupees as
122
security. Immediately after the judgement had been given the

headman's supporters in the coastal villages, where there were about
20,000 Parava Catholics, encouraged demands for Goanese priests.
Five villages at once responded. Then those Catholics of Tuticorin
who remained loyal to Castanier borrowed a statue of Christ from the
Punnayakayal church for a festival. The headman accused them of
stealing it, and the Collector sent them in chains to be tried by the
Judge. He found them not guilty, but they spent a month in gaol
awaiting trial. 31
Difficulties increased the Jesuits' ardour, if not their spirit of
tolerance. The Belgian Father Jacques Wilmet resolved that he would
improve the moral state of the Catholics of Tuticorin. When people
came to confession he told those whom he regarded as habitual
sinners that they would have to wait: those who were well known for
their addiction to alcohol, to quarrelling, or to swearing would have
to prove by good behaviour that they were worthy to take
communion. He reported complacently that 'everyone agreed that
the Father was right' «tout Ie monde convient que Ie Pere a raison').
But Father Wilmet soon had misgivings. He came to think that
Indians were prone to hide certain sins in confession. Perhaps this was
because some Jesuits were too severe, Father Bertrand in particular.
He himself once told Wilmet that his practice was to refuse not only
communion but also absolution to all who had sinned even two or
three times a year against the sixth commandment. The embarrassed
Father Wilmet was obviously referring to the seventh commandment
against adultery. 32
Father-General Roothaan was shocked to learn that Catholics had
been refused absolution and communion: he told Bertrand that it was
'the saddest news' that he could have received ('une des plus tristes
nouvelles que je puisse recevoir de votre mission'); it was contrary to
Christ's specific teaching. 33 Bertrand, who had once praised the
religious devotion of Indians, now justified such severity on the
ground that Indians were so liable to 'gross sensuality' «grosse
materialite'). But this did not convince the Father-General, and an
indignant exclamation mark was scored in the margin of Bertrand's
letter. 34
Bertrand's pessimistic opinion of the moral quality of Indians was
one reason why so few were accepted for ordination as priests in the
Madurai mission. This came to be criticised in the Vatican. Another
source of criticism was Bertrand's regard for caste. Father-General
Roothaan commented to Bertrand that in Vatican circles it was often
123
said that little was known about what was going on in the Jesuit
mission, and that the Pope himself was reported to have said as much.
Roothaan wanted more information, and he asked to be reassured
that all the Jesuits had taken the oath required of them since the
eighteenth century, that they would respect the principles laid down in
Omnium Sollicitudinum. 35 Bertrand reported that they had all taken
that 'terrible oath' «un serment terrible'). Only recently, he added,
some Jesuits in the south had expressed scruples. The Bull stated that
all Catholics whether of high or low birth should hear Mass and
receive Communion in the same church at the same time. Such words
taken literally seemed to prescribe the fusion of castes. If so, the
missionaries would have to pack their bags and go back to Europe
«tous les missionaries pourroient faire leur paquet et retourner en
Europe').
But the separation of castes in certain churches had been tolerated.
Bertrand explained carefully that this did not seem to be 'absolutely
contrary' «absolument contraire') to Papal instructions since everyone
was in the same church. Yet Bertrand knew that in some churches
Parias had to stand outside, either at the main door or at a side door
where they could hear Mass and receive communion. The Bishop of
Pondichery had advised the Jesuits to tolerate this, and he had
criticised Father Martin for not doing so. In a new church which the
Jesuits built at Madurai the plan resembled that of the old church: it
was in the form of a cross, with the nave for the higher castes and the
arms for the Parias. Bertrand asserted that what was at issue was
merely a social distinction similar to that between nobles and peasants
in Europe. He had told the Jesuits not to innovate in such matters: the
time was not ripe for big reforms. 36 This appealed to Father-General
Roothaan, who promptly ordered that there should be no innova-
tions. 37
However, criticism of the Jesuits' conservatism in caste matters was
soon voiced again. There was a general discussion of policy at a synod
held in Pondichery in 1844 by French missionaries of the Missions
Etrangeres. It was resolved to extend schools and facilities for the
training of Indian priests. All Indians of caste would be eligible: this
included Sudras but not the lower or polluting castes. The young
Abbe Luquet brought the proceedings to Rome and also submitted a
commentary which was discussed by Propaganda Fide. Among other
matters he criticised the deference paid by the French Jesuits to caste
feelings. Propaganda Fide was impressed by his arguments, and he
was made a Bishop the following year.38 The Bishop of Pondichery
was also told that there should be no exclusions on grounds of birth.

In fact, Propaganda Fide had already ruled, in 1832, in response to
Mukkuvan pressure in Kerala, that a limited number of Fisher caste
youths should be trained as priests.
Nevertheless, when the Jesuits established a college in Negapatam
in 1845 their policy was to admit only youths of high caste. 39 In the
same year Bertrand wrote an indignant reply to the Abbe Luquet's
criticisms in which he argued in defence of Jesuit policy as
necessitated by circumstances and stated that when new churches
were built decent accommodation was provided for Parias. 4o
Soon Propaganda Fide decided that the position of the Madurai
mission should be assimilated to that of other Indian missions: in
other words, it should be headed by a Vicar Apostolic with the title of
a Bishop in partibus infidelium under the direct control of the Sacred
Congregation. This was contrary to the expressed wish of Father-
General Roothaan that all directives should go through him as head of
the Jesuit Order. Propaganda Fide conceded, however, that the first
Bishop should be a French Jesuit, Father Alexis Canoz. 41
The formation of an Indian clergy was in fact a long-established
policy of Propaganda Fide, and the Jesuits were criticised for not
doing enough to this end. Indeed, the Secretary of the Sacred
Congregation, Alessandro Barnabo, remarked shortly before he
became Cardinal Prefect in 1856, that if more were not done the
next head of the Madurai mission would not be a Jesuit. 42 In a
memorandum on the subject Father Bertrand argued that caste was
the main obstacle. Even if an Indian priest were impartial as between
one caste and another he would always be suspected of bias. 43
However, Bishop Canoz protested that the Jesuits were doing their
best. 44 Indeed, in 1859 Father Peter Rayapper, of the Shanar caste,
was ordained priest in the Society of Jesus: he was an old pupil of the
Collegio Urbano maintained by Propaganda Fide in Rome. 45 But it
was 1894 before the first Parava, L.X. Fernandes, was ordained, and
this was as a secular priest. 46
Meanwhile, the Paravas continued to perplex the Jesuits in various
ways. Father Jean Combes noted their musical ability and their love
for High Mass, which they sang perfectly. At evening services they
would sing various Latin chants as well as could be found in any
church in Europe. 47 He and other Jesuits could not understand how
such religious devotion was compatible with allegiance to the
padroado. But they forgot that it was under the padroado that such
devotion had first been developed. They devised various strategies to
125
win back churches they had lost. Sometimes they tried to enlist the
help of the British authorities. When one church at Periyatalei went
over to the padroado in 1845 Father Castanier reported to the
Collector that serious disagreements threatened law and order there,
and asked that the church be closed until all the parishioners together
requested that it be reopened. The Collector duly issued an order
closing the church, and it remained closed for three years. Finally, in
1848 Castanier persuaded his opponents to submit, and at the
unanimous request of the parishioners the Collector revoked his
closure of the church, and Castanier was installed again as its priest. 48
Other tactics were also used. Canoz told Roothaan that the Paravas
were so quarrelsome and rebellious that they had to be checked by
fear. They needed personages of authority. Like many Bishops, he
thought an episcopal visitation would be beneficial. Even the
announcement that he was coming had had a calming effect, he
reported. 49 It was curious that so many people, including the caste
headman, seemed to take no notice.
Castanier attempted more forceful methods. Father Victor du
Ranquet described the effectiveness of Castanier's preaching one
evening to a village congregation. He erected a large picture on thin
cloth lit from behind. With a stick he pointed dramatically to various
scenes in the picture as he preached: 'now it was Hell, where one saw
the damned in the flames' ('tantot c'etait l'Enfer OU I'on voyait les
damnes dans les flammes'); or they were being punished by 'big snakes
which bit cruelly' «des grands serpents qui les mordraient cruelle-
ment'); 'now it was the dying sinner already seized by the seven deadly
sins, pictured as seven ugly demons' ('tantot c'etait Ie pecheur
mourant, saisi deja par les sept peches capitaux, figures par sept
vilains demons'). Father du Ranquet thought the villagers were greatly
affected by these horrifying scenes, and he suggested that such
methods might be effective in Europe - at least in country districts
unaffected by the restless atmosphere of great cities (Tesprit frondeur
des grandes villes,).50
The Jesuits tried pomp and circumstance in Tuticorin itself. After
all, it was the headquarters of the Parava caste headman. The Italian
Jesuit Father Pietro Mecatti estimated in 1850 that about 3,000
Para vas there were loyal to the Jesuits and about 1,000 to the
padroado. But for years the Jesuit congregation had to worship in a
temporary shelter, while the historic church of Our Lady of the Snows
was in the hands of Goanese clergy. Father Lorenzo Puccinelli urged
that a big new church should be built, to his own design, dedicated to
126
St Fidelis. This was agreed. Puccinelli brought the saint's remains from
Rome in 1847, and Bishop Canoz came to consecrate the new church
in 1849. Henceforth the Jesuit congregation would have a festival to
match that of Our Lady of the Snows. 51 This was the Jesuit hope. But
the Goanese priests and their flock continued undisturbed.
The Jesuits also looked to divine intervention to bring the Paravas
into line, and a dramatic incident seemed to invite it. A village
headman accused Castanier of supplying the intoxicating beverage
toddy to various villagers, who then drunkenly insulted other
villagers, especially women. He also accused Castanier of immorality.
These accusations went to the caste headman in Tuticorin, and a copy
was thoughtfully sent to the Collector. But the following day the
village headman was afflicted with a painful boil on the very hand
that had written these accusations. Fearing death he asked for a priest.
Castanier was away, but Father Wilmet heard his confession and
absolved him. After his recovery, however, he had the marriage of two
of his daughters celebrated by a Goanese priest under the padroado.
Then he was struck down by illness again. He asked again for a priest,
but on this occasion he died before one could reach him. Father
Castanier commented with some satisfaction that 'Providence wanted
to strike a blow for justice' {'Providence voulait frapper uncoup de
justice,).52
But the caste headman himself was unaccountably spared the
divine wrath. He invited the leading inhabitants of the Parava villages
to Tuticorin for the marriage of one of his daughters. The invitations,
accompanied by the customary gifts, were greeted in the villages with
drums and other musical instruments; songs were sung which
contained 'aspersions on the Catholic missionaries' ('improrerii dei
missionarii cattolici'). Father Mecatti noted sorrowfully how the
Paravas abandoned themselves to ribaldry on such occasions. At
Manapad the village heads and people met under a tree and decided to
abrogate some of the rules laid down by Canoz on his last visit. There
were similar doings at Periyatelei and some other villages. 53 At
Tuticorin there were joyful celebrations with dancing girls invited by
the headman himself. Father Louis Verdier blushed to report ('je
rougis de dire') that the dancing girls were assigned a prominent place
in church in front of the Blessed Sacrament. This was 'the
abomination of desolation' he declared dramatically, 'in the sanctuary
of the Lord' ('['abomination de la desolation dans Ie sanctuaire du
Seigneur'). The marriage was celebrated by five Goanese priests, one
of whom preached a fiery sermon against the Jesuits. 54
127
The Jesuits sometimes tried the law courts when a Goanese priest
was in charge of a church while they were left to worship in a hut
or a shelter. Urged on by the energetic Castanier, they would
institute a suit for possession, sometimes winning and sometimes
losing. But such cases, whatever the result, were invariably followed
by appeals to a higher court, and much money was spent. Finally, in
1854 the Madras Supreme Court ruled that in churches where a
Jesuit had been peacefully installed, the local authorities should not
intervene to remove him. Castanier thought that such a decision
would end the Goanese schism, as he called it, in the Madurai
mission. He was mistaken, and Father Puccinelli, often a tactless
critic of his French colleagues, commented that these law suits were
a waste of money. 55
In comparison with the Paravas, whom the Jesuits thought so
rebellious and troublesome, the Vellalas and Shanars seemed very
courteous towards missionaries. In 1839, Father Bertrand wrote
enthusiastically of the Shanars' primeval innocence. 56 Such pleasing
reveries continued. In 1858, Father Verdier thought that every
missionary felt relieved when he left the coast for the inland villages
('En quittant la cOte Ie coeur du missionaire se dilate'). Everywhere
inland he could appreciate the people's 'simplicity, docility, respect
and love for the missionary' ('la simplicite, la docilite, Ie respect et
I'amour pour Ie missionaire').
Unlike the Paravas with their expertise in the Latin liturgy and their
delight in singing High Mass, the less sophisticated congregations
inland were content with low Masses and with prayers in Tamil. All
the castes inland, even the high-status Vellalas, made fewer demands
on the Jesuit missionaries. 57 Nevertheless, notions of primeval
innocence were soon dissipated when the Jesuits found themselves
the unwilling spectators of caste conflicts among their flock. There
were riots in Vadakkankulam in 1849 when a Shanar marriage
procession went into Vellala streets. The building of a new church was
delayed for five years because of disagreements over the areas to be
allocated to the two castes: the Shanars wanted a space equal to that
assigned to the Vellalas, who wanted more. 58
Gradually the Jesuits became more sympathetic to the situation of
low-caste Catholics. They even tried to obtain some relaxation of the
prohibition against performing music at Hindu festivals which made
life very difficult for low-status Catholic musicians. This went to the
Holy Office. But that institution replied, as it usually did, that there
was to be no innovation. However, the Jesuits were exhorted to act
128
with prudence in such delicate situations. 59 Clearly, they should have

avoided troublesome enquiries about rules in the first place.
In spite of the Jesuits' irritation with the Para vas, they strongly
opposed the possibility that they return to Portuguese jurisdiction as a
result of the Rome-Lisbon concordat of 1857. When a commission
was exploring possibilities, the Portuguese commissary claimed the
Fisher Coast for Goa. The Jesuits then argued that many evils had
developed among the Paravas under Goanese priests after the
suppression of the Society of Jesus, and that reforming them had
since involved much suffering for the missionaries ('E incredibile a
dire quanta ci abbiama (atto sa{{rire'). A return to Goanese
jurisdiction would encourage the Paravas to return to their old vices.
They might even be led into Protestantism. On the other hand, the
Shanars, merely as a result of their simplicity, might also be led astray
into heresy.6o However, the concordat was never implemented.
When Canoz made another visitation to the coast in 1864 he
thought there had been much improvement among the Paravas. The
arrival of a society of French nuns had had beneficial effects. 61 These
Soeurs de Marie Reparatrice had come specifically to help widows and
to teach in girls' schools. Soon they were enlisting Indian nuns into
their congregation, including some of the Parava caste. 62 This aroused
controversy, and at the same time a few Jesuits were suspected of
taking too close an interest in the nuns. There were appeals to Rome,
and a Visitor Father Johann Lessmann, was appointed to investigate.
Eventually, the nuns had to go. Meanwhile, there were demands for
Paravas to be accepted as candidates for the priesthood. While Canoz
was in Rome for the Vatican Council of 1870 those left in charge of
the Madurai mission accepted this in principle, but when he returned
he insisted that the decision be reconsidered as the time was not yet
ripe. 63 Some of the Jesuits thought that the example of the nuns had
encouraged Parava ambitions. 64
At about the same time there was a demand from Pari as to be
admitted to Catholic schools and also to the Jesuit college at
Negapatam. Their petition went to Rome, and an enquiry arrived
from Propaganda Fide. Canoz, conservative as ever, reacted by
arguing that because of high-caste feelings low castes could not be
admitted to the college at Negapatam 'without grave inconvenience'
('sine gravi incommodo'). He added that when the Jesuits began
teaching in the new municipal schools that were planned there would
be no problem since government policy was that there should be no
caste distinctions in its educational institutions. 65 To say this came
129
near to admitting that the traditional Jesuit policy of respecting caste

aroused more difficulties than the government's policy of ignoring it.
In fact Paria unrest was growing, and Jesuit attitudes were
changing. When the Catholic Parias of Tirunelveli petitioned Rome
in 1880 to be transferred to the jurisdiction of Goa, Father Leon
Barbier, as Superior, decided that the local priest, Father Augustin
Poulenc, would have to be moved as he must have offended them. 66
Then the unfortunate Father Poulenc was involved in a further
embarrassment. He had encouraged some high-status Vellalas near
Trichinopoly to build a church of their own. But when it was built
they asked for the regular services of a Jesuit priest. Canoz then
refused, on the ground that they wanted to exclude Parias, contrary to
the general policy of the Holy See, while the Jesuit church was big
enough for all. There were bitter protests from the Vellalas, but times
were changing, and Jesuit attitudes toO. 67
The Shanars, by now generally called by the more polite name of
Nadars, were also more restive. In one church, at Kalleikulam, they
asked to have altar servers of their own caste instead of Vellalas.
Again the Jesuits were far from welcoming or making use of caste
rivalry. On the contrary, they saw it as a difficult problem. Canoz
thought that Father Caboz must have been inciting the Nadars to put
forward such demands. 68 Caboz was also suspected of having
unseemly partiality towards the Soeurs de Marie Reparatrice, and
he was soon removed from the mission. 69 Father Leon Barbier, an
authoritarian figure, for his part blamed the Goanese priests: he
thought that they were encouraging low castes to be assertive. 7o But
Canoz was now told by the Father-General to take as little notice as
possible of caste: this was the practice of the British authorities, and it
was also the view of Propaganda Fide. 71
The Nadars, however, petitioned Rome on the matter, but they
received a mollifying reply to the effect that although there were
various classes in human societies, all men were equal in God's sight,
and all should be faithful to the Church.72 Meanwhile, Father Guchen
prepared a statement forty-two pages long with the arguments for and
against the change desired by the Nadars. On the one hand, a process
of emancipation was taking place: the Jesuits could not stop it and
should help it along. Also, the principle of having only high-caste
servers was not followed everywhere - certainly not in Tuticorin, for
example. On the other hand, there were only 2,000 rebellious Nadars
as compared with 20,000 who seemed content with things as they
were. More important, at the present time one could see everywhere
130
that 'it is the devil of independence, of insubordination, of revolt who

is on the march. The authority of the priest is every day more ignored.
One should restore it, safeguard it' ('c'est Ie diable de tindependance,
de !'insubordination, de la revolte qui est en campagne. L'Autorite du
pretre est tous les jours plus meconnue. I; (aut la relever, la
sauvegarder'). The priest should always be free to do as he thought
fit. This was the decisive argument. 73
Various financial and administrative difficulties delayed the
implementation of the concordat of 1857. By the 1880s it seemed
time to try again, and news of the preliminary discussions prompted
many illuminating petitions to Rome. The Paravas of Manapad, now
under the padroado, sent a petition criticising the Jesuits. Canoz said
it was 'full of lies and calumnies' against him and his colleagues
('pleine de mensonges et de calomnies c~ntre nous'), and he explained
it in terms of the turbulent character of the Paravas?4 The notion that
the Fisher castes in general were aggressive and quarrelsome had by
now taken root both in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Because their
traditional occupation led many of them into trade and prosperity
they were apt to resent the low status traditionally assigned to them,
and unlike the Nadars they were bold enough to challenge
missionaries, whether Jesuits or Carmelites, and were ever ready to
desert them for Goa. In another petition high-caste Catholics
complained that Goanese priests neglected them for the Paravas of
the coast. 75
Meanwhile, further evidence emerged of Paria unrest.· High-caste
Catholics complained of an exciting incident when Padre Pinto, a
Goanese priest in Trichinopo\y, had gone to their own church with
some Parias. Although a parishioner tried to keep them out they
forced their way in, and Padre Pinto said Mass. The operation had
clearly been planned in advance, for the group was accompanied by
some police constables. The high-caste Catholic who tried to stop
them was beaten up and then put in gaol for a few hours. 76 Goanese
priests seemed more liberal in such matters than the Jesuits.
The Jesuits themselves were puzzled by the popularity of Goanese
priests. The venerable Father Verdier even suggested that the Parava
headman was employing magicians on behalf of the Goanese priests.
How else could one account for their success?77 But various petitions
suggest a more plausible explanation. Goanese priests seemed more
tolerant and friendly in their demeanour than the stern, reforming
Jesuits with their regard for the hierarchies of caste. Some supporters
of the Jesuits complained that one Goanese priest 'as if he had nothing
131
to do with the spiritual care of his Christians often goes a-hunting;

descends in rivers with clothes less comfortable to his sacerdotal
dignity in order to catch fish; takes recreation in his own boat and
now and then with other Goanese priests also; and when going [it]
seem[s] that they are delighted with the low songs of the rowers, and
never hinder these men from singing such songs'. The petitioners also
mentioned drunkenness and neglect of pastoral duties, and concluded
dramatically: 'What were not the murmurs against these priests in the
workshops of the railway and elsewhere.'78 Other criticisms of
Goanese priests support this impression of greater tolerance. Bishop
Barthe, who had succeeded Canoz, complained that Goanese priests
seemed not to object to Catholics attending Hindu festivals or to be
greatly troubled if Catholic husbands had mistresses. 79
Early in the negotiations leading to the concordat between Rome
and Lisbon that was eventually signed in 1886, the Jesuits first
proposed that the Fisher coast should be abandoned to the padroado
diocese of Mailapur in return for the surrender of padroado
jurisdiction elsewhere in Tamil Nadu. This seemed acceptable to the
Archbishop of Goa. Then Father Verdier was asked to look into the
details. He had many misgivings. Would this amount to surrendering
Catholics to heresy? Some Goanese priests actually employed
Protestant school mistresses! Verdier was deeply shocked to learn
this. Also, there was evidence that Jesuit labours on the Fisher Coast
had not been entirely wasted. Although the Parava headman was still
under the padroado, he regularly came to the Jesuit church for
communion on the first Friday of every month. 80 Verdier strongly
advised against surrendering Tuticorin. Military metaphors became
more frequent as the arguments developed, and agreement became
more difficult. Eventually the diocese of Trichinopoly was created for
the Madurai mission, and some territorial adjustments had to be
agreed with the revived diocese of Mailapur. After tortuous
negotiations 14 padroado churches were assigned to the diocese of
Mailapur, which remained under Goa: they included those at
Manapad, Tuticorin and Trichinopoly. At first the Jesuits were
appalled at the continuation of what Verdier called the 'deadly' system
of double jurisdictions. s1 They thought that the controversies
associated with it in the past would continue indefinitely.
The Jesuits agreed that Jose Reed da Silva, the new Bishop of
Mailapur, was determined to establish good relations with them. s2
But they still distrusted Goanese priests, and accused them of all
manner of moral failings. In 1891 Bishop Barthe told Propaganda
132
Fide about some of their misdeeds. In one village in Trichinopoly

district there were about forty Catholic Paria families who were guilty
of what he called 'devilish practices' ('pratiques diaboliques'). The
Jesuits discovered this in 1864 and tried to make the Parias give up
these mysterious 'practices'. But the Parias transferred their allegiance
to the neighbouring Goanese priest, who had no objection. The same
thing happened in another village in 1872. 83 No doubt what was at
issue was that in addition to their Christian prayers the converts still
worshipped a local deity. Goanese priests were accustomed to such
matters and took them lightly. But for Bishop Barthe to dredge up
these examples from the past was evidence of his anxieties in the face
of the coming competition between Jesuit and Goanese priests.
After the concordat was implemented in 1893 Verdier complained
that although there were no problems in Tanjore, where Jesuit
churches were ceded to Mailapur, there were difficulties in some of the
padroado churches ceded to the Jesuits elsewhere. Some Catholics
refused to abandon their Goanese priests, no doubt encouraged by
those priests themselves, he added darkly.84 When Bishop Reed da
Silva stayed for a couple of days with the Jesuits at Trichinopoly, he
said that he strongly disapproved of any violation of the spirit of the
concordat. 85 But Verdier was unconvinced, and soon complained to
the Provincial that the Bishop of Mailapur was continuing with his
evasions (Cchicanes,).86 There were other complaints. Father Selvana-
der, an Indian Jesuit appointed to a church ceded by Goa in 1893,
reported that opponents of the transfer organised a disturbance in the
following year. They were found guilty by the Sub-Magistrate, and on
appeal the sentence was confirmed. But the parishioners faithful to
Father Selvanader were still terrorised, and the church ornaments
were withheld from him. Since the concordat the whole village had
been disturbed, he said. 87
Meanwhile in Tuticorin caste controversy was encouraged by two
new factors - the growing wealth of some elite Paravas who had
prospered in trade, and a succession dispute resolved in 1889 with the
appointment of a new Fisher caste headman with a resounding
Portuguese name: Dom Gabriel de Cruz Lazarus Motha Vaz. He
promptly made impressive claims. In a deposition before the second
class magistrate he asserted: 'I am the head of the Paravers. 1 am the
head of all the Paravers in India. There is no Paraver who is not
subject to me.,88 But assertion was not enough. He was in fact the son
of the previous headman's daughter, and this provoked complaints to
the effect that succession through the female line was invalid. Several
133
of the Parava elite complained to Father Caussanel, who was in

charge of the Jesuit church in Tuticorin. The headman had been
installed on 5 September 1891, they said, but within a few weeks 'a
separate party' had been formed which 'had the audacity to make
imitation banners, shields, etc., and bribed some of our barbers to
carry them for the marriage and funeral processions of the said
parties'. They accused Caussanel of encouraging of our national
barbers to carry the rival insignia 'instead of our national and
traditional standards, shields, etc.'. 89 But the Jesuits declined to be
involved. When the headman's opponents asked Father Verdier, as
Superior, for his approval, he refused to give it. As he reported the
conversation to Father Caussanel: 'You are free, I told them, I am not
forcing anyone either way ... I am outside this movement' ('Vous etes
libres, leur ai-je dit, je ne force personne pour ou contre ... je reste en
dehors de ce mouvement').90 On the other hand, the Jesuits rejected
the headman's demand that they should not allow rival insignia in
their church, and they also rejected his demand that they should
recognise him as headman and allow his own insignia in their
church.91 He was so vexed by the Jesuits' indifference that he
complained to Bishop Ladislao Zaleski. He even asserted that the
Jesuits would excommunicate anyone who gave him honorific gifts of
betelnut!92 But Zaleski had more important things to think about. In
planning the new general seminary he knew he had to ignore caste. By
now Vatican policy about caste punctilio had undergone a funda-
mental shift. It no longer seemed proper or even politic for Bishops
and priests to support caste hierarchies and headmen.
However, the Jesuits were careful to support their friends: the
Gomes family were an example. The Jesuits admired their high status:
Verdier told Caussanel in 1891 that Crux Gomes was 'the most noble
man in Tutocorin' ('Ie plus noble de Tuticorin'). The Jesuits had tried
unsuccessfully to establish his father as caste headman. Now he was
very poor, and had been deprived of caste honours because of his
opposition to the present headman. On his mother's death he asked
for a dignified funeral with three priests, and Verdier warmly
agreed. 93 But such things only inflamed the headman's suspicions.
In 1894 he accused the Jesuits of trying to supplant the car festival
procession from the padroado church of Our Lady of the Snows with
a procession from their church of St Fidelis. Sometimes church
rivalries at such ceremonies led to fisticuffs, and on this occasion the
headman complained in dramatic terms to the Portuguese Bishop of
Mailapur. This has led Susan Bayly to assert that in order to
134
undermine the headman the Jesuits inaugurated in 1894 a festival in

honour of St Fidelis which had never been celebrated in Tuticorin
before, with a procession bearing a relic specially obtained from
Rome. 94 In fact, the Tuticorin missionary diaries show that the
procession in honour of St Fidelis had long been a regular affair, with
various sums of money spent on coolies, flowers, torches, and
gunpowder, while the relic itself had been brought to Tuticorin by
Father Puccinelli half a century before this. There were a few
innovations from time to time. One year there were balloons instead
of fireworks. Another year there were both. But the essentials of the
festival had continued for half a century.95 Nothing seems to have
come of the caste headman's complaint to the Bishop of Mailapur.
Again the headman had failed to realise that times had changed: since
the 1886 Rome-Lisbon concordat the Portuguese Bishops were doing
their best to co-operate with the authorities under Propaganda Fide,
including the French Jesuits. In the following year the headman took
great care to preserve order when the car was pulled around the
compound. A Jesuit witness described how the headman stood with a
stick ('baguette') in his hand directing the crowds who pulled the car.
All the same, one of them fell and was killed. Father Peyret asked
piously whether this was a warning from the Virgin that she had no
desire for her effigy to be erected on the car. 96
Another act of defiance which irritated the Jesuits was the
headman's support for Antonio Alvarez, a former Goanese priest
who had joined the Jacobite church, an offshoot of the Syrian church.
In the eyes of the Catholic church this offshoot was heretical, and
Alvarez was excommunicated by the Archbishop of Goa, but was
made a bishop by a Jacobite prelate. He gathered followers, usually
termed low-caste in the critical literature about them. He travelled
widely in the South, accompanied by his chief supporter, Luis Soares,
another Goanese who had been excommunicated. When they reached
Tuticorin in 1895 the headman welcomed them. 97 This move
backfired, for Alvarez had been denounced by the Archbishop of
Goa as well as by the Jesuits. The headman was widely criticised, and
in the following year he came to see Verdier in order to excuse
himself. Verdier merely told him that he now belonged rightfully to
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Mailapur, and advised him to be a
good Christian. 98
In fact, the headman's position was steadily weakening. He could
no longer turn to the padroado as a counterpoise to the Jesuits: after
the concordat the Bishop of Mailapur's policy was to heal the old
135
sores. Then the growing wealth of various Parava entrepreneurs

encouraged restiveness about his claims to leadership. A few months
later the headman tried again. Xavier Motha came to the Jesuit house
in Tuticorin to explain the headman's position. In the unsympathetic
words of the mission diary: 'He wanted help in gaining his living by
touring the villages asking the people for money and in being given
a
honours' ('ll voudrait qu'on l'aidat gagner sa vie en parcourant les
villages et en demandant l'argent du people et qu'on lui fait des
honneurs'). Several of the Parava elite, including the rich magnate
J .M. Roche, had promised to warn him if he did anything contrary to
the church, and to leave him if he did not follow their advice. The
Jesuits were unimpressed. 'Times have changed', they said ('Les temps
ont change'). The headman was hard pressed and wanted money, but
he had 'done nothing for the good of the people, neither in education
nor in the reform of abuses' ('il n'a fait rien pour Ie bien du peuple soit
pour l'education, soit pour la reforme des abus'). The Jesuits noted
cynically that the reason for Xavier's move was no doubt that he
wanted to marry the headman's eldest daughter. 99 In fact, Goanese
priests under the Bishop of Mailapur were now also asserting their
independence of the headman. 1oo
Another sign that times had changed was the reaction that greeted
the announcement by Father Casimir Cros in 1891 that he was
arranging meetings of missionaries to discuss the general implications
for caste of Benedict XIV's ruling in Omnium Sollicitudinum that all
Catholics should be able to worship together at the same altar, and
especially in the context of Father Bertrand's treatise. Father Bertrand
had written this treatise over fifty years before when he was Jesuit
Superior of the Mission re-established in Tamilnadu in 1837, and had
stressed the importance of paying due deference to caste suscept-
ibilities. The Vicar-General wrote in severe terms to Father Cros. Not
only did the Holy Office disapprove of Bertrand's views but it
demanded of all Jesuits 'an absolute silence, the most scrupulous
silence' on such matters ('un assoluto silenzio, il piu scrupuloso
silenzio'). This was reinforced by the Jesuit Father-General, who
enjoined, in the solemnity of Latin, 'a most religious silence'
('religiosissimum silentium,).101
Father Caussanel's experiments with mass conversions in the 1890s
reinforced this change in Jesuit attitudes. From his base in Tuticorin
he converted the inhabitants of several villages nearby, and his
converts included Vellalas, Nadars, Parias and other castes, not to
speak of some Protestants. In these proceedings he paid no regard to
136
caste. 102 This was a challenge to the traditional Jesuit notion that
respect for caste was a precondition for evangelism. Soon some of the
elite among the Para vas objected when he organised the annual retreat
for the boys of St Francis Xavier School, Tuticorin, in 1891, and
admitted some Paria boys from St Antony's School nearby.103 One
father threatened to send his son to the Protestant Caldwell College
instead, and warned of dire consequences. 'Certainly I will not be
responsible if my son loses his religion by studying in a Protestant
college.' He told Caussanel that he had no objection to Parias sitting
next to Paravas in Church, but he did object to his son associating
with Parias in school. 'Your reverence confounds religious with social
customs', he remarked condescendingly. 104
Father Verdier was appealed to, but he replied that under
government rules schools must be open to all castes. A parent
withdrew his son from school, and Caussanel refused to readmit him,
so the parent appealed to the Director of Public Instruction, who
replied that a pupil could only be expelled for grave moral reasons.
The parent also told Verdier that he had no objection to Parias
making retreats: the problem was that Paravas did not like Parias to
see them eating food or drinking water. It was in fact a characteristic
worry of high-caste Hindus who also objected to the notion that low
castes should see them satisfying physical appetites. Father Verdier
thereupon explained that the Paria boys lived during the retreat in a
room separate from the school building, and they ate and drank there,
while for spiritual exercises they had to remain behind the Parava
boys. In the end the protesters apologised and promised not to
interfere again in the running of the school. 105
Soon enough the Parava parents in general accepted the new
situation. But Caussanel was criticised by traditionally-minded Jesuits.
When his appointment as Superior-General was under discussion,
Father Galien wrote to his Provincial in protest on the ground that
Caussanel dreamt of 'the fusion of castes, or rather the emancipation of
the low castes' ('Le P. Caussanel qui reve la fusion des castes, ou plutat
l'emancipation des castes inferieures'). Galien forecast that this would
end the hopes of converting Brahmans. 106 Then he was accused by a
former schoolmaster of immodest conduct ('attachements immo-
destes'). The matter was investigated by Father Caussanel himself,
and although Galien was cleared it was though advisable for him to
leave Madurai. He was quickly sent off to Mauritius. 107
Times had greatly changed. The old worries about separate places
in church had gone. Parias could now sit wherever they liked; and
137
Paravas found the Jesuits more favourable to their own claims. In

1891 Father Barbier announced, as Superior-General, that Paravas
could be considered for ordination if they had passed the B.A. In 1892
Father Verdier agreed to Father Caussanel's request that two Parava
girls could be admitted to the convent in Tuticorin. 108 Prospects also
seemed brighter for Catholic Nadars. In 1894, Father Verdier
commented that as the Nadars had grown so numerous and rich,
and were in those respects superior to the Vellalas, their demands
should be satisfied whenever possible. 1 0 9
However, the Jesuits were troubled in 1895 when two Catholic
Nadars were sentenced to death and thirty-two others to imprison-
ment for complicity in the assassination of a Hindu temple manager
and a village official in a riot at Kalugumalai in Tinnevelly district.
The manager had ordered the demolition of the portico of a new
Catholic chapel on the grounds that it would obstruct the passage of
the car which was being dragged in procession through a sacred street
during a Hindu festival. The Nadars refused, and rioting followed,
during which lives were lost and Nadar houses were looted and
burned. The Nadars' opponents said that some 200 Nadars had
decided to become Christian after they had unsuccessfully tried to use
the sacred street as Hindus. On the other hand it was at the time when
Father Caussanel and his colleagues had embarked on their mass
conversion strategy, and it was he who had recently bought the
chapel. Also, those involved in the troubles were not all Nadars; of the
thirty-four accused, thirty-three were, but one was a Vellala catechist.
The District Judge commented on the upward mobility of the local
Nadars: they were, he said, 'a pushing class'; they claimed twice-born
status as Kshatriyas and 'being thrifty traders' they were 'making
efforts to improve their caste and social position' yo In fact there had
been a number of cases before the civil courts in which Nadars had
unsuccessfully asserted their right to use the street for their own
processions. 1ll In the end the Jesuits hired a lawyer, who pronounced
that the evidence against the accused men seemed doubtful. They
appealed, and in the High Court the Judge's sentences were quashed
and he himself was censured. The Jesuits were much relieved: they
had always praised the peaceable nature of Catholic NadarsY2
Eventually, the Jesuits seemed reconciled to the existence of two
overlapping jurisdictions. Their criticisms of Goanese priests came to
be on grounds of taste rather than morals. In 1896 Father Lassus
decried the flamboyance of the neighbouring Goanese priest in
Manapad. There was an enormous procession one evening through
138
the main streets, carrying 'I do not know what relics, with drums,
trumpets, fireworks ('je ne sais queUe relique, avec tambours, et
trompettes, feux d'artifice'). 'Only an elephant was lacking' (Iln'y
manquait un elephant'), he added sourlyY3 A few years later,
however, the supercilious Father Lassus had to pay tribute to the
helpfulness of his Goanese neighbour. When Lassus was very ill the
Goanese priest heard some one hundred and fifty confessions before
Lassus himself gave Communion. 114 In 1898 Bishop Barthe reported
that the new Bishop of Mailapur would be a force for peace. He
stayed at Trichinopoly for a few days and signed an agreement with
Barthe to regulate the times of processions, so that some of the old
quarrels could be avoidedYs
Archbishop Zaleski also did his best to reconcile the old factions
among the Paravas. There were two social clubs for Parava Catholics
in Tuticorin - St Peter's and St Mary's. Those who followed the caste
headman and the Goanese priests belonged to St Peter's, while the
Jesuits' followers belonged to St Mary's. When Archbishop Zaleski
made an official visit to Tuticorin as Apostolic Delegate in 1903, he
was given a reception by St Mary's club and he asked to be made a
member. He refused a subsequent invitation to St Peter's on the
ground that there should be one club for all Catholics. 116 But there
were still traces of the old rivalries. Zaleski noted in 1904 that the
Portuguese Bishop Ribeiro of Mailapur and the Jesuit Bishop Barthe
sincerely wanted friendly relations with each other. But Bishop Barthe
was always criticising Goanese priests, and Bishop Ribeiro could not
stand it. 117
However strong the new spirit of democracy some of the Jesuits
never relinquished their dream of converting Brahmans. They still
treasured the example of Nobili, who had lived like a Brahman and
eventually converted Brahmans. They moved their college from
Negapatam to Trichinopoly in the hope of attracting more high-caste
pupils, and the Rector often urged his colleagues to make more efforts
to convert Brahmans. But this policy was vigorously criticised in
1894, when Verdier was challenged by his Provincial, who warned
him that the Pope himself wanted the Jesuits to concentrate on the
formation of Indian priests. The Provincial suggested that they could
divert to this end some of the energy they had hitherto employed on
educating Brahmans who eventually became government officials. It
seemed unfortunate that although St Joseph's College had 1,700
pupils, no less than 1,000 of them were Brahmans. Verdier quickly
replied that the college policy was to accept all Catholic boys who
139
showed signs of a religious vocation. Also, the parents of Hindu

pupils had to pay fees, and this money enabled the college to admit
poor Catholic boys free of charge (80 per cent of all Catholic boys
could not afford to pay the fees). Verdier even advised his Provincial
to study the history of Nobili, who thought that only by converting
Brahmans could one convert India. lls
The old policy seemed to be justified in the nick of time when in the
following year four Brahman pupils were converted. Bishop Barthe
wrote optimistically to Propaganda Fide that this would encourage
the conversion of other castesY9 With a family inheritance Father
Lacombe bought a plot of land where these Brahman Catholics could
live with their families as Brahmans, without the loss of status that
might result if they mixed socially with other Indian Catholics. This
settlement came to be called St Mary's Tope, and the Jesuits hoped for
great things from their new venture. 120 They thought that high-caste
Hindus would be attracted by the sight of Christian Brahmans living
like orthodox Brahmans, shunning meat and the proximity of low
castes. Surely this would result in the conversion of the high castes?
The number of Christian Brahmans in the settlement increased from a
handful to one hundred and fifty in thirty years. 121 When the
Provincial visited Trichinopoly in 1935 the senior member of the
colony told him that St Mary's Tope was 'the chef d'oeuvre of the
mission'. No other mission had succeeded in converting so many
Brahmans. 122
Was this the climax of the traditional Jesuit policy of deference to
high castes? To many observers that policy was beginning to seem old-
fashioned. Western-educated Brahmans rarely kept the rules. And
Catholics of low caste might be alienated by the notion that Christian
Brahmans shunned their presence just as much as orthodox Hindu
Brahmans did. In 1902, when Archbishop Zaleski, as Apostolic
Delegate, analysed the results of missionary policy in India, he argued
that the Jesuits exaggerated the importance of caste. What remained
of Nobili's work? There was not a single descendant of any of his
Brahman converts. But there were thousands of Catholics descended
from the lower castes converted by St Francis Xavier. 123
140
Postscript
From the time of Benedict XIV there had been strong reminders from
Rome of the primary Christian vision of the church as one body. In
every country Christians should worship together in the same place,
and at the same time. Attempts by missionaries in Tamil Nadu to
justify caste divisions as merely social or as aids to conversions had
been accepted reluctantly in Rome as a temporary solution. But by the
1880s such views seemed increasingly irrelevant and indeed embar-
rassing. Many hoped that it would be enough to ignore caste issues
and avoid discussion of them. The Vatican had always pressed for a
native priesthood, and increasingly missionaries were urged to
encourage vocations without regard to caste.
As noted in Chapter 1, the new general seminary was deliberately
sited in Kandy to ensure the mingling of students from different parts
of India and to foster a caste-free atmosphere. From the Belgian
Jesuits who had proved so successful in achieving this in Calcutta
Father Sylvain Grosjean was chosen to integrate the new venture. 1 By
September 1894, Grosjean felt able to claim a quick resolution to the
original problem of the association of European, mixed race and
different castes at table and recreation. The students were far from
carping relatives and nervous bishops, and 'with God's help from
diverse elements a family was being formed' ('Deique aspiranti gratia
ex heterogenesis elementis una familia effecta est'). 2
The new seminary did not have the opportunity to introduce Pari a
students. Monsignor Zaleski, now Apostolic Delegate, was asked to
reassure the Archbishop of Madras that if he sent his ordinands to
Kandy they would not have to mingle with Parias. Zaleski's private
comment was that there was no danger, since no bishop would ordain
a Paria, but added that if this were publicised it would be an insult to
half the Catholics in India. 3 But he had little comfort for a deputation
141
of Parias at Madras 'all gentlemen, in European dress, civil servants',

- 'tutte signori, vestiti all' Europea, impregati del Governo'. They
wanted to know whether Christ had intended the priestly vocation to
be open to all believers? Privately he wrote that this sacrament must
be for the exceptional, and prophetically that 'poor nuns' were even
more deprived. Feeling that it would be wise to avoid general
discussion he advised the group to go to their parish priests who
would explain the catechism. While he supported the ordination of
low-caste priests, his private comments showed that he felt that the
ordination of Parias was premature, since many Indian priests would
fear that it would 'lower the status of the clergy'.4
After the departure of the British Raj the Government of India
paid what could have been regarded as an indirect compliment to
the Indian Christian community. The special protective discrimina-
tion for Pari as was withdrawn from Christians because it was
assumed that they would not be subject to caste prejudice. But
particularly in southern India in Tamil Nadu the new arrangements
were bitterly resented. Parias claim they now face double
discrimination. While they continue to be underrepresented in
secular and religious posts in the church their claims to public
service are ignored, and they remain economically disadvantaged. A
Jesuit research centre has found that no Christian Dalit (the self-
description preferred by contemporary Parias) has been appointed
to the Indian Administrative Service, while they are not represented
in judicial or legislative bodies. 5
The Church in Tamil Nadu has appointed some Dalit priests, nuns
and teachers, but they are rarely given preferment. Although Dalits
form over 70 per cent of the Christian population only 3.8 per cent
have been ordained. The Jesuits, who are seen as leading champions
of the Dalits, have eighteen Dalit priests (from a total of 300). Father
Antony Raj, a Dalit Jesuit, has encouraged his people to reject
Gandhi's reassuring description of 'harijan', or 'blessed one' for
'dalit', the broken or oppressed. He urges Dalits to be proud of their
name, and assert their claim to equal human rights.
Almost one hundred years after the foundation of the Kandy
seminary the church in southern India has overcome its anxieties over
the formation of Dalit priests, but continues to exercise religious as
well as economic and social discrimination. Although the great
majority of Catholic Christians are Dalits, in some areas they have to
worship separately, and use a separate cemetery. Elsewhere they are
not allowed to take part in religious ceremonies. Many receive no
142
POSTSCRIPT
VISits from the priest, and have great difficulty In gaining church
school and college places. 6
The Indian Bishops recognised the urgency of the situation when
they chose the subject as one of three main themes for their 1992
annual conference, but Jesuit observers have seen little advance for
Dalit Christians since then. 7 Under the Raj Christian Parias could rise
high in the civil service and expect to convey their concern to the
Apostolic Delegate. Although today there are Dalit priests the status
of Dalits in the church is still low while state discrimination against
Christian Dalits has increased. Since the days of Benedict XIV the
example of Peter the Fisherman has inspired Rome to discourage
caste. His example still encourages disadvantaged Indian Christians to
claim a greater share in the life of the community.
143
Notes
Preface
1 London, 1980.
2 Ambrosius a S. Theresia, Historia Carmelitana, iv (Rome, 1938),236.
3 Fr P. Antony Raj, S.J. After gaining his Ph.D. at the Loyaia University of
Chicago in 1987, he returned to India and was President of the Dalit
Christian Liberation Movement from 1989 to 1992, now Research
Director at the IDEAS Centre in Madurai.
Chapter I
1 Nestorian: based on the proposition that there are two natures, divine and
human, in Christ.
2 Technically, the Vicar Apostolic who lived in Bombay, and was often
called the Catholic Bishop of Bombay, was assigned responsibility for
Catholics in the Mughal empire, but that empire was now obsolescent.
3 N. Kowalsky, 'Die Errichtung des Apostollschen Vikariates Madras nach
den Akten des Propagandaarchivs', NZM, viii (1953), 36-48, 119-26,
193-210.
4 Bishops Carew and Fennelly. J. Michie to B.F., 8-9-1845, SC Ind. Or. 10,
408-11.
5 Dubois, 'Notice sur les missions Portugaises due Madure dans i'Inde, AP
(Archives of Propaganda Fide), SC Ind. Or. 5, 655.
6 Fr. Antonio Tristao Vaz Teizeira was appointed in 1836 but his
appointment was never confirmed by the Pope. After his death in 1852
the Portuguese claimed that Mailapur was administered by an episcopal
governor, although from the Vatican's viewpoint it had been suppressed.
Fortunato de Almeida, Hist6ria da Igre;a em Portugal, iii (Lisbon, 1970),
611.
7 Josef Metzler, 'Die Aufnahme des Apostolischen Breves "Multa Praeclare"
in Indien. Nach den Akten des Propagandaarchivs', Zeitschrift fur
Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft, xxxviii (1954), 295-
310.
145
8 Jose Maria da Silva Torres. Almeida, op. cit., 619-20. Josef Metzler, 'Die
Patronatswirren in Indien unter Erzbischof Silva Torres (1843-1849),
Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft, xlii
(1958), 292-308.
9 Catholic Examiner, quoted in Times of India, 6-7-1861, SC Ind. Or. 17,
1960.
10 Strickland to Mgr Buratti, May 1860, ibid., 1235-6. Buratti was one of
the minutanti on the staff of Propaganda Fide.
11 Ristretto of 1864, AP, CP Ind. Or. 160, 125-37v.
12 J. Sewell, to Father-General, 27-2-1895, ARSI (Archivum Romanum
Societatis Iesu), Missio Madur, 1-x-10.
13 Duncan Forrester, Caste and Christianity. Attitudes and Policies on Caste
of Anglo-Saxon Protestant Missionaries in India (London, 1980).
14 Susan Bayly, Saints, Goddesses and Kings. Muslims and Christians in
South Indian Society, 1700-1900 (Cambridge, 1989).
15 Constitution Omnium Sollicitudinum, 12-9-1744, Collectanea S. Con-
gregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro
Apostoiicis Missionibus, i (Rome, 1907), 153-73.
16 P.E, Instructio, 7-1-1778, Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda
Fide seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, i
(Rome, 1907), 324.
17 J.L. Conde et al. to P.E, 6-1-1781, AP, SOCG 862, 129-30; P.E to Conde
et aI., 9-4-1783, LDB 242, 300-4; P.E to Brigot, Bishop of Tabraca in
part., 9-4-1783, LDB 242, 304-9.
18 P.E to Bishop Saverio, 2-6-1832, LDB 313, 500-2.
19 Bertrand to Father-General, 15-4-1841, Missio Madur., 1-vi-8.
20 Father-General to Bertrand, 28-12-1841, ARSI, Missiones II, 72.
21 Ladislao Zaleski to P.E, 6-11-1894, AP, NS 71, 429-32.
22 Luquet to P.E, 9-4-1845, AP, Acta 208, 130ff; Carlo Merces de Melo,
The Recruitment and Formation of the Native Clergy in India
(16th-19th Century): an Historical-Canonical Study (Lisbon, 1955),
257ff.
23 P.E to Bishop of Pondichery, 26-7-1845, AP, LDB 332, 504-7; Launay ii,
295.
24 'Oeuvres de la Mission de Madure pendant l'annee 1845', SC Ind. Or. 10,
676.
25 Luquet, op. cit., 227-8.
26 'Remarques sue les Eclaircissements de Mr. Luquet', encl. with Roothaan
to P.E, ibid., 245-64.
27 Roothaan to R. St Leger, 1-5-1838, ARSI, Missiones 1832-40, 167-8.
28 Report of discussion, 21-9-1869, SC Ind. Or. 20, 760ff.
29 Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinarii, Acta, Dec. 1891,
AP, Acta 262, 47v. Also Carlo Merces de Melo, op. cit.
30 Historia fundationis seminarii pontifici Kandyensis scripta a P. Grosjean,
ARSI, Missio Beng. 3-xv-1.
31 Leon Barbier to Provincial, 15-7-1891, Jesuit Archives, Toulouse, E Md,
150.
32 Barbier to Provincial, 16-2-1891, E Md. 150; Grosjean to Delvaux,
9-5-1893, Missio Beng. 3-xvi-13.
146
NOTES
33 Barbier to Grosjean, 1-2-1891, Missio Beng. 3-xvi-5; Barbier et al. to

Card. Rampolla, July 1891, ibid. 3-xvi-7; Congo Aff. Eccl. Straord., Acta
Dec. 1891, AP Acta 262,8, 45ff; H. Josson, P. Sylvain Grosjean, 226-71.
34 R. Boudens, 'The Difficult Growth of Catholic Life in Ceylon', in J.
Metzler (ed.), Memoria Rerum, iiill (Rome, 1975),455-6.
Chapter II
1 Pub. Letter from Bombay, 1 Nov, 1819, para. 91.
2 Pub. Letter from Bombay, 12 Aug. 1820, paras. 23-7.
3 Pub. Despatch to Bombay, 23 Jan, 1828, paras. 33-42.
4 Bishop Luigi [Aloysius] Maria di Gesu, Fr Raimondo & Fr Valentino to
Bombay Governor, 3 March 1799, lOR [India Office Records], Board's
ColI. 601114474. Bishop Luigi was Bishop of Ursula in partibus,
Ambrosius, Hierarchia Carmelitana, iv. 282.
5 Pub. Letter from Bombay, 14 December 1799, para. 12, lOR.
6 He was also the author of a book on Hinduism, Systema Brahmanicum
Liturgicum Mythologicum Civile, Rome 1791, and another on Roman
Catholic missions in India, India Orientalis Christiana, Rome 1794.
7 Bombay Pub. Despatch, 18 Mar. 1801, para. 13, lOR.
8 In Accountant-General, East India House, to Messrs Huddart, Routh &
Garland, Leghorn, 23 July 1818, Board's ColI. 14474, lOR.
9 In Secretary, East India House, to Huddart, Routh and Garland, 1 Dec.
1818. ibid.
10 Fr Prospero to Propaganda Fide, 30 Sept. 1814, AP [Archives of
Propaganda Fide], SC Ind. Or. 2 (1811-1819), 74-5; Prospero to
Father-General, 30 Sept. 1814, ibid. 76-81v; Acta CP Sin. and Ind. 20
(1815-1821), 52-3; Fr. Saverio to Propaganda Fide, 10 Dec. 1818, SC
Ind. Or 2 (1811-19),206.
11 Card. Fontana to Secretary, East India Company, 7 Oct. 1820, Board's
ColI. 14474. Francesco Fontana succeeded Lorenzo Litta as Cardinal
Prefect in 1818.
12 Committee of Accounts memo., 15 Dec. 1820, Board's ColI. 601114474.
13 Pub. Letter from Bombay, 16 June 1814, paras. 28-39.
14 Pub. Despatch to Bombay, 8 Apr. 1816, paras. 13-16.
15 Francois Xavier to govt. 13 Mar. 1821, Board's ColI. 20461. He spelt his
name in this way when writing in French to the govt., J. Harris (Collector)
to govt., 22 Sept., 22 Nov. 1821; Govt. to Collector, 4 Dec. 1821; ibid.
16 J.A. Dubois to Vaccination Superintendent, Madras, 1 June 1811, Board's
ColI. 9625; Jud. Despatch to Madras, 2 June 1814, para. 45; Pub.
Despatch to Madras, 24 July 1818, para. 4.
17 Dubois to Resident, 28 Sept. 1819; A.H. Cole, Resident, to govt., 1 Oct.
1819; Board's Coli. 21071; Pol. Despatch to Madras, 26 Apr. 1825, para 51.
18 Memorial to Alcantara, 2 Oct. 1819, SC Ind. Or. 2 (1811-19), 596-7; to
Pope Puis VII, ibid. 601-2.
19 K. Ballhatchet, 'Missionaries, Empire and Society: The Jesuit Mission in
Calcutta, 1834-1846', Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,
vii, 1 (1978), 18-34.
147
20 Auber to Macaulay, 28 Feb. 1833, Letters from Court to Board XII, 62-4,
1.0.R.
21 ParI. Debates, 19 Jul. 1833, 3rd. ser., XIX, 1020-5.
22 Supreme govt. to Madras govt., 9 Dec. 1835, Madras Eccl. Procs., Jan.
1836, 18-20.
23 Govt. resolution, ibid. 20-1.
24 Eccl. Despatch to G. of I., 17 Sept. 1845, paras. 6-8. The reference to
'ignorant individuals and low persons of Portuguese extraction' was
inserted by the Board of Control, whose President was Lord Ripon: Board
to Court, 3 Sept. 1845, Letters from Board, XIV, 376.
25 Bayly, Saints, Goddesses and Kings, passim.
26 Minute, 21 Dec. 1841, Madras Eccl. Procs., 2 Jan. 1841,62-3.
27 Govt. resolution, ibid. 64-5.
28 D. Davidson to govt., 13 Jan. 1857, Bombay Eccl. Procs., 19 Feb. 1857,
130.
29 A.K. Corfield to govt., 21 Feb. 1857, 131.
30 Ann Laura Stoler, 'Rethinking Colonial Categories: European Commu-
nities and the Boundaries of Rule', Comparative Studies in Society and
History, xxxi (1989, 138).
31 After Bishop Alcantara's death, his successor Bishop Fortini was not paid,
but Fortini's successor Bishop William Whelan was paid a government
stipend of 200 rupees a month initially, later increased to 400 rupees.
Bishop Whelan was known to have regularly visited British troops in
Bombay after the Sind campaign, in spite of an outbreak of cholera among
them.
32 Eccl. Despatch to G. of I., 11 Aug. 1852. These were the Bishops in
Madras and Bombay, and in West and East Bengal.
33 Petition from Persico and Strickland, n.d., Board's ColI. 2525/14174.
34 Lucas, speech on 15 Aug. 1853, and Wood's reply, ParI. Debates, 3rd. ser.,
CXXIX, 1722-3.
35 Eccl. Despatch to G. of 1.,28 Feb. 1856.
36 G. of I. to Bombay Govt., 29 May 1856, para. 4, Bombay Eccl. Procs., 28
June 1856, 388.
37 E.C. Jones (Collector, Thana) to govt., 10 Dec. 1856; Govt. to Jones, 18
Dec. 1856. Bombay Eccl. Procs., 31 Dec. 1856, 827-8.
38 Eccl. Despatch to Bombay, 11 Aug. 1858, para. 9.
39 Auckland to Elphinstone, 30 Mar. 1838, 1.0.R., MSS Eur. F87 Box 2 g,
23.
40 Hobhouse to Elphinstone, 24 Nov. 1838, ibid. Box 2 b, 14,48-55.
41 Ecclesiastical Despatch to Madras, 1 Apr. 1840, para. 14.
Chapter m
1 'Paginae quae sequntur ... sunt forsitan ex tristioribus totius historiae
rnissionis illius'. Hirerarchia Carmlitana, IV (Rome, 1939),256.
2 ibid., 268.
3 Luigi Maria di Gesu; Raimondo di S. Giuseppe. Luigi to P.E, 26-4-1796,
AP, Sc Ind. Or. & Cina 39, 22-3.
148
NOTES
4 See ch. II.

5 Prospero di S. Teresa to Father-General, 30-9-1814, SC Ind. Or. 2, 76-81v.
6 P.E to Vicar Apostolic, Baghdad, 9-7-1814, LBD 295. 58-9.
7 Prospero to P.E
8 Congregatione, 18-1-1815, Acta CP Sin. & Indn., 20, 52-3.
9 Alcantara to P.E, 12-11-1815, SC Ind. Or. 2, 206-6v.
10 Saverio to P.E, 30-9-1816, ibid., 242-3v.
12 ibid.
13 Requisiti di P. Milesio Prendergast, ibid., 494v-496. From Lisbon the
Papal Nuncio praised his qualities, Nuncio to P.E, 7-8-1804, SOCG 911,
551-51v.
14 Archbishop to P.E, 15-5-1820, SC Ind. Or. 3, 147-153.
15 Prendergast to P.E, 12-4-1821, ibid., 362-3.
16 Prendergast to W. Perrin, 7-6-1821, ibid., 383v-385v.
17 Memorial from Latin rite priests, 20-9-29, Acta 193, 506-7; Alcantara to
P.E, 26-7-1831, ibid., 154-5v.
18 Prendergast to P.E, 8-6-1825, SC Ind. Or. 4, 159-60.
19 Pinto et al. to P.E, 18-10-1824, ibid., 99-100v.
20 E.g. Nicola to P.E, 2-12-1824, ibid., 101-102; Prendergast to P.E,
8-6-1825, ibid. 159-60.
21 Nicola to P.E, 2-12-1824, ibid., 101-102v.
22 Stabellini to P.E, 29-7-1826, CP 154,246-253.
23 ibid. Also Stabellini to Alcantara, 31-7-1826, ibid., 254.
24 Secretary to Prefect, 27-4-1827, ibid.,; CP minutes, 5-5-1827, ibid., 255-58;
Relazione, Udienze 68, 488-9l.
25 Finney to P.E, 6-8-1819, SC Ind. Or. 2, 568.
26 Minuta di Lettera per Mgr. Milesio Prendergast, ibid., 577-7v; Secretary,
P.E, to Pope Leo XII, CP 154, 260-2.
27 Alcantara to P.E, 7-12-1831, SC Ind. Or. 5, 2-2v; to P.E, 17-10-36, ibid.,
877-86; to P.E, 12-2-1839, SC Ind. Or. 7, 66-66v; Ambrosius a S.
Theresia, op. cit., 298ff.
28 Stabellini to P.E, 25-2-1828, SC Ind. Or. 4, 499-502v.
29 Pastoral, 14-7-1827, ibid., 605-7v, declaration, 607v-608.
30 Nicola to Saverio, 5-10-1829, ibid., 599-60l.
31 Saverio to Stabellini, 28-10-1929, ibid., 603-3v.
32 Nicola to Saverio, 20-11-29, 603v-606.
33 Stabellini to P.E, 3-2-1830, ibid., 612-13.
34 Stabellini to Father-General, 16-6-1830, ibid., 619-21v.
35 Acta 193, 486v.
36 Stabellini to P.E, 1-9-1831, Acta 195, 155v-57.
37 P.E to Saverio, 2-6-1832, LDB 313, 500-2.
38 Saverio to P.E, 6-7-1834, SC Ind. Or. 5, 309-12v.
40 Saverio to P.E, 14-3-1838, SC Ind. Or. 6, 398-399v.
41 Neves to Saverio, 14-7-1840, SC Ind. Or. 7,545.
42 Rev. c.c. D'Cruz et al. to Resident, 30-6-1838, LO.R. M.E.P. [Madras
Ecclesiastical Proceedings], 31-7-1838, 597-60l.
43 Neves to Resident, 19-7-1838, ibid., 628-30.
149
CASTE, CLASS AND CATHOLICISM I~ INDIA 1789-1914
44 J. Link to Madras Govt., 1-8-1839, M.E.P. 10-9-1839,706-723.

45 Venkatassubiah to Douglas, 10-8-1838, M.E.P. 27-8-1839,634-8.
46 Douglas to Madras Govt., 13-8-1839, ibid 631-3.
47 Govt. of India to Madras Govt., 2-10-1839, M.E.P. 5-11-1839, 943-5.
48 Ecclesiastical Despatch to Madras, 1-4-1840, para. 14.
49 Saverio to Madras Govt., n.d., SC Ind. Or. 8, 394-399v.
50 Ibid.
51 Saverio to P.E, 31-10-1834, SC Ind. Or. 5, 396.
52 Saverio to P.E, 11-3-1839, SC Ind. Or. 7, 85-6.
53 Ludovico to P.E, 16-11-1844, and 17-11-1844, SC Ind. Or. 9 1254-60v,
1294.
54 Ludovico to P.E, 2-3-1850, SC Ind. Or. 12, 742-4.
55 Bernardino di S. Teresa to Bernardino di S. Agnese, 5-4-1851, Acta 214,
632v-3v.
56 Bernardino di S. Teresa to Bernardino di S. Agnese, 21-4-1852, ibid.,
633v-4v.
57 Bernardino di S. Agnese to P. Gen, 26-4-1851, ibid., 630-2v.
58 Pro-memoria, 22-6-1852, ibid., 628v-630.
59 Bernardino di S. Agnese (handwriting of Bernardino di S. Teresa) to Sindaco
Comm. Gen. Missioni Carmelitani Scalzi, 1-9-1852, Acta 214, 636-7v.
60 Vic. Gen., Pro-memoria, 24-10-1851, ibid., 634v-5.
61 Both signed the document, although the handwriting was that of
Bernardino di S. Agnese. To Vic-Gen., 1-11-1851, SOCG 975,1529.
62 Ludovico to P.E, 28-4-1852, ibid., 645-6.
63 L. Puccinelli to P.E, n.d., ibid., 654-663.
64 Ludovico to Mgr Burratti, 31-8-1852. (Bishop Clemente-Maria Burratti
was one of the minutanti attached to P.E's secretariat.) SC Ind. Or. 13,
1118-36v.
65 Acta 218, 30f£.
66 Bernardino di S. Teresa to P.E, 28-12-1854, SC Ind. Or. 14, 1465-6v.
67 P.E to Ludovico, 14-7-1855, LDB 346,473.
68 Ludovico to P.E, 5-11-1855, SC Ind. Or. 15, 762-7v.
69 Mellano to P.E, 3-6-1878, SC Ind. Or. 21, 1170-1v; Berardi to P.E,
26-8-1888, SC Ind. Or. 33, 756-7v.
70 Ferreira to Secretary of State, 12-12-1895, AP, NS 71,459-68.
71 Ferreira to Aiuti, 28-12-1887, ibid., 268-9v.
72 Ferreira to Aiuti, 6-4-1888, and memoria, ibid., 259-62, 272-80.
73 Memoria, ibid.
74 Mellano to Aiuti, 24-4-1884, ibid., 266-7v.
75 L. Verdier to P.E, 18-7-1888, ibid., 300-1.
76 Berardi to P.E, 26-8-1888, SC Ind. Or. 33, 756-7v.
77 Agliardi to P.E, 16-11-1888, ibid., 857-8v.
78 P.E to Aiuti, 11-12-1888, LDB 384, 676.
79 Aiuti to P.E, 14-4-1889, SC Ind. Or. 34, 150-3.
80 Aiuti to P.E, 22-5-1889, NS 71, 302-8.
81 Aiuti to Ferreira, 21-5-1889, ibid., 321-2.
82 Aiuti to P.E, 15-6-1889, SC Ind. Or. 34, 356-8
83 R.P. Bonifacio (Kurz), to Aiuti, 28-7-1889, NS 71, 346-9.
84 Ferreira to Aiuti, 5-8-1889, ibid., 350-1.
150
NOTES
85 Aiuti to P.E, 15-10-1889, ibid., 334-45.

86 Cruzengal Caickoo Baud et al. to Pope Leo XIII, 4-11-1889, SC Ind. Or.
35, 350-1.
87 Mellano to Aiuti, 27-2-1890, ibid., 334-40.
88 Auiti to P.E, 23-3-1890, ibid., 324-33.
89 P.E to Aiuti, 12-11-1889, LDB 385, 771-2; Ferreira to Aiuti, 19-1-1890,
SC Ind. Or. 35, 119-28; Aiuti to P.E, 27-1-1890, ibid., 91-103.
90 P. Gregorius a Rozario et al. to Aiuti, 24-10-1890, ibid., 1211-2; Aiuti to
P.E, 6-12-1890, ibid., 1209-10.
91 Aiuti to P.E, 7-12-1890, NS 71, 373-7v; P.E to Aiuti, 19-1-1891, LDB
798,34.
92 Ferreira to Secretary of State, 12-3-1895, NS 71, 459-64.
93 Zaleski to P.E, 12-2-1895, ibid., 398-400v.
95 Collectanea S. Congregation is de P.R seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta
pro Apostolicis Missionibus (2 vols, Rome, 1907).
96 Zaleski to Bishops of Malabar, 21-10-1894, NS 71, 423-4.
98 Zaleski to P.E, 6-11-1894, ibid., 429-32.
99 Ferreira to Zaleski, 9-3-1895, ibid., 469-70v.
101 P. Joseph Bagues et al. to P.E, 15-12-1894, NS 143, 308-11; Vic. Gen.,
Carm. Scalzi, Relatio super documentum, 5-3-1895, ibid., 314; Vicar-
General, Interrogatorium et responsa, 25-3-1895, ibid., 312; P.E to Vic.
Gen., Carm. Scalzi, 5-4-1895, ibid., 317; Candido, memo., 26-4-1895,
ibid., 444v-50; Ferreira to Secretary of State, 13-7-1895, ibid., 512-7.
102 Ferreira to Rampolla, 12-4-1895, ibid., 459-69.
104 P.E to Ferreira, 6-9-1895, ibid., 526-9v.
105 P.E to Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinarii, 28-7-1898,
ibid., 198-9.
Chapter IV
1 Nota, AP, Acta 157, 499.
2 A moderate stipend, i.e. 60 scudi a year. AP, LDB 250, 698.
3 Pinto to P.E, 3-12-1786, AP, SOCG 877,455-8. Vittorio di Santa Maria
succeeded Mgr Angelino di San Giuseppe, who died at sea in 1786; his
appointment was confirmed by Propaganda Fide in 1787. J.H. Gense,
The Church at the Gateway of India, 1720-1960 (Bombay, 1960)
frequently refers to him as Victoria: this was the Latin form of his name.
Vittorio's colleague was Fr. Carlo di San Pietro. See Ambrosius a S.
Teresia, Nomenclator Missionarium Ordinis Carmelitarum Discalcea-
torum (Rome, 1944).
4 Giovanni Barretto et al. to Bishop Vittorio, n.d., SOCG 877,466-76.
5 Vittorio to parishioners, 6-3-1786, ibid., 478-90.
6 Antonio Barretto et ai. to Vittorio, 23-6-1786, ibid., 481-504.
7 Carlo di S. Corrado to P.E, 18-8-1984, ibid., 455.
151
8 P.E to Vittorio, 6-10-1787, LDB 250, 695-700, encl. !struzione, ibid.,

700-6.
9 Petition encl. with Firth to gOyt., LO.R., B.P.P. [Bombay Public
Proceedings], 3-3-1789, 112-6; Vittorio to gOyt., 28-4-1789, B.P.P.
28-4-1789,230-2.
10 Minutes, n.d., B.P.P. 28-4-1789, 244-5.
11 Joao Antonio da Sylva to gOyt., 3-4-1789, B.P.P. 14-4-1789, 212-3;
4-5-1789, ibid., 5-3-1789,291-4.
12 Pinto to gOyt., 5-5-1789, B.P.P. 5-5-1789,294-7.
13 Vittorio to gOyt., 11-5-1789, B.P.P. 12-5-1789,313-16.
14 Medows to Archbishop of Goa, n.d., B.P.P. 18-5-1789,327-9.
15 Archbishop to Goyernor, 25-5-1789, B.P.P. 9-6-1789, 383-5.
16 Vicar-General to govt., 23-6-1789, B.P.P. 23-6-1789, 412-3.
17 Petition to gOyt., 12-4-1789, B.P.P. 15-4-1789,174-7.
18 Petition to gOyt., n.d., B.P.P. 29-3-1791, 174-7.
19 Gomes to govt., 21-4-1791,6-6-1791, B.P.P. 22-4-1791, 268-9, 7-6-1791,
421-2.
20 GOyt. resolution, B.P.P. 7-6-1791, 423.
21 Archbishop to Goyernor, 27-1-1791, B.P.P. 22-7-1791, 521-31.
22 Vittorio to P.E, 1-10-1791, AP, SC Ind. Or. Fondo di Vienna 30, 65, 72.
23 Petition to gOyt., 15-11-1791, B.P.P. 6-12-1791, 821-3.
24 De Lima e Souza to gOyt., 9-1-1792, B.P.P. 24-1-1792, 55-7.
25 Public Despatch to Bombay, 25-6-1793, para. 35, lOR.
26 De Lima e Souza to gOyt., 9-12-1793, B.P.P. 10-12-1793, 1200-1.
27 Alcantara to gOyt., 13-12-1793, B.P.P. 17-12-1793, 1269-71.
28 Philip de Cruz et al. to gOyt., n.d., B.P.P. 31-12-1793, 1322; gOYt. minutes,
B.P.P. 23-1-1794,42-3.
29 Antonio George D'Ga et al. to GOYt., n.d., B.P.P. 31-1-1794, 62-3.
30 Govt. resolution, ibid.
31 Nossa Senhora de Salyacao at Mahim and Nossa Senhora de Gloria at
Mazagaon went to the Archbishop of Goa's supporters.
32 De Lima e Souza to gOYt., 17-2-1794, B.P.P. 21-2-1794, 123-6.
33 The principal church, Nossa Senhora d'Esperanca, and also St Michael's
at Mahim went to the Carmelites.
34 Alcantara to gOyt., 18-3-1794, B.P.P. 25-3-1794,174-5.
35 De Lima e Souza to gOyt., 13-3-1794, B.P.P., 18-3-1794, 147.
36 De Lima e Souza to gOyt., 29-5-1795,837.
37 Petition to govt., n.d., B.P.P. 25-4-1794, 234-6.
38 Petition to Alcantara, n.d., encl. with Alcantara to govt., 6-5-1794, B.P.P.
9-5-1794,273.
39 Petitions to gOyt., 29-5-1794, B.P.P. 10-6-1794, 370; 23-6-1794, ibid.,
423.
40 Petition to gOyt., 30-12-1794, B.P.P. 23-1-1795,144-5; de Lima e Souza
to gOyt., 29-1-1795, B.P.P. 30-1-1794, 185-6.
41 De Lima e Souza et al. to Alcantara, 27-1-1795, B.P.P. 30-1-1795, 185-6.
42 Alcantara to de Lima e Souza et al. 27-1-1795, ibid., 186.
43 Alcantara to de Lima e Souza, 29-1-795, ibid., 187.
44 De Lima e Souza to gOyt., 29-1-1795, ibid., 184-5.
45 Minutes, ibid., 188.
152
NOTES
46 Alcantara to govt., 2-2-1795; Doney to Alcantara, 2-2-1795; B.P.P.

24-2-1795,208-9.
47 Alcantara to govt., 10-2-1795, B.P.P. 24-2-1795, 391-2.
48 Govt. resolution, ibid., 393.
49 Manuel di S. Gualdino.
50 Govt. resolution, B.P.P. 15-7-1812,2174-2203.
51 Archbishop to govt., 3-6-1812, ibid., 2170-3.
52 Supr. govt. to B. govt., 28-8-1812, LO.R., Board's ColI. 420-10311,
269-71.
53 Archbishop to Bombay govt., 3-6-1812, B.P.P. 15-7-1812,2170-3.
54 Rosario de Quadros et al. to Parras, n.d., encl. with Parras to govt.,
22-6-1812, ibid., 2167-9.
55 De Misquita et al. to govt., 16-11-1812, B.P.P. 25-11-1812, 5351-2.
56 Minutes, 21-11-1812, ibid., 4352-3.
57 Minto to Archbishop, 18-12-1812, Board's Coil. 420/1031, 328-32.
58 Pol. Letter from Bombay, 11-3-1813, paras. 22ff.
59 Counter-petition, 3-2-1813, B.P.P. 3-3-1813, 854-5.
60 Erskine to govt., 5-3-1813, Board's Coli. 420/10311, 387-9.
61 De Misquita et al., to govt, 30-11-1818, B.P.P. 16-12-1818,2461-9.
62 Rozario de Quadros et aI., to Erskine, 25-10-1818, B.P.P. 31-3-1819,
495-510.
63 Erskine to govt., 2-3-1819, ibid., 485-95.
64 Archbishop of Goa to Vicar-General, 20-10-1816, B.P.P. 8-1-1817,
16-25. .
65 Minutes, 3-1-1817, ibid., 3-9.
66 Judge and Magistrate, North Konkan, to govt., 31-1-1820, B.P.P.
31-1-1820, 185-93.
67 Public Letter from Bombay, 12-8-1820,23-7.
68 Public Despatch to Bombay, 23-1-1828, 33-42.
69 Luigi Maria di S. Teresa (Ferdinando Fortini).
70 Rappresentazione, n.d., SC Ind. Or. 7, 10-11.
71 P.E to Prendergast, 8-12-1838, LDB 320-II), 1359v-60.
72 Josef Metzler, 'Das Salsette-Dekret von 1839 und seine Bedeutung fur
Bombay', Neue Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft, X (1954), 109-22,
194-207.
73 Govt. to Alcantara, 30-50-1839, B.P.P. 31-5-1839, 975.
74 Minute, 27-5-1839, ibid., 974.
75 Antonio Mariano Soares et al. to govt., 20-6-1839, B.P.P. 4-12-1839,
3526.
76 Alcantara to govt., 10-1-1840, B.P.P. 22-1-1840,449.
77 j.w. Langford to govt., 4-1-1841, B.P.P. 27-1-1841,481.
78 Langford to Fortini, 4-2-1841, SC Ind. Or. 8, 76v.
79 Fortini to Langford, 6-2-1841, ibid., 76.
80 Albuquerque et al. to govt., 30-7-1841, B.P.P. 11-8-1841,4780.
81 Langford to Fortini, 4-2-1841, SC Ind. Or. 8, 86v.
82 Vicar of St. Michael's, Mahim to Fortini, 15-2-1841; Fortini to Langford,
17-2-1841, ibid., 77v., 80.
83 Fortini to P.E, 1-3-1841, ibid., 74-5.
84 Michele Antonio di S. Luigi Gonzaga (Antonio Anfossi).
153
85 Deposition, 14-6-1841, ibid., 312-3.

86 John de Faria et al. to govt., 13-7-1841, B.P.P. 28-7-1841,4527.
87 Fortini to P.E, 30-9-1841, SC Ind. Or. 8,306-9.
88 Fortini to P.E, 1-12-1841, ibid., 367-9v.
89 Fortini to P.E 2-5-1842, ibid., 590-I.
90 John Francis of S. Teresa.
91 Fortini to P.E, 1-4-1889, SC Ind. Or. 9, 214.
92 Clemente di S. Teresa to Michele Antonio, 10-7-1843, Acta 212, 60.
93 Whelan to Oeuvre, 1-11-1843, SC Ind. Or. 9, 871; Fortini to Oeuvre,
1-1-1844, ibid., 872.
94 Oeuvre to P.E, 1-3-1844, ibid., 870.
95 P.E to Oeuvre, 30-3-1844, LDB 331, 222.
96 P.E to Whelan, 2-4-1844, 2-4-1844, ibid., 258v.-9.
97 Whelan to P.E, 30-11-1843, ibid., 540-1; 30-1-1844, ibid., 808-9.
98 Fortini to P.E, 30-11-1843, ibid., 505-6.
99 Whelan to P.E, 30-1-1844, ibid., 808-9.
100 Fortini to P.E, 1-2-1844, ibid., 822-3v.
101 Whelan and Fortini, ibid.; Archbishop to Bombay govt., 26-2-1844,
B.P.P., 19-5-1847, 194; Josef Metzler, 'Die Patronatswirren in Indien
unter Erzbischof Silva Torres (1843-1849)', Zeitschrift fur Missionswis-
senschaft und Religionswissenschaft, XLII (1958), 292-308.
102 Fortini to P.E, 1-12-1847, SC Ind. Or. 11,547-50.
103 Lieut C. Kean et al. to Pius IX, 3-1-1848, ibid., 605-20.
104 J.S. Macauley et al. to Ecclesiastical Registrar, 16-2-1848, ibid., 714.
105 Whelan to P.E, 25-2-1848, ibid., 718-9.
106 Archbishop to P.E, 26-2-1848, ibid., 722-3.
107 Govt. to J. de Monte et aI., 30-6-1848, B.E.P. [Bombay Ecclesiastical
Proceedings] 15-7-1848,294.
108 N.C. de Mello et al. to govt., 7-7-1848, B.E.P. 6-9-1848, 365; J. de
Monte et aI., to govt., 9-9-1848, B.E.P. 18-10-1848,478.
109 G.L. Farrant to govt., 18-9-1848, B.E.P. 22-1-1848, 485.
110 J. de Monte et al. to govt., 20-9-1848, ibid., 484A.
111 Govt. to Michael Antony, 18-10-1848, ibid., 488; Michael Antony to
govt., 25-10-1848, B.E.P. 31-12-1848, 604.
112 c.L. Phillipps (Fabriqueiro) et al. to govt., 19-2-1849, B.E.P. 30-5-1849,
176; Minutes of Church Meeting, 25-2-1849, ibid., 148.
113 Whelan to govt. 27-2-1849, ibid., 144; Falkland, minute, 31-3-1849,
ibid., 176A; govt to Phillipps, 20-4-1849, ibid., 149.
114 Phillipps et al. to govt., 4-4-1849, ibid., lSI.
115 Lumsden, memorandum, 10-5-1849, ibid., 176B; Falkland, minute,
21-5-1849, ibid., 176C.
116 Gazette, 14-2-1849, SOCG 972, 65I.
117 ibid., 650.
118 Minutes of Church Meeting, 11-5-1849, B.E.P. 23-6-1849, 263.
119 Sheehan to P.E, 7-3-1849, Acta 212 (1849-50), 616-7v.
120 Bernadino to P.E, 22-12-1848, ibid., 606-7; Memoria, 10-5-1849, ibid.,
608-11; 1-11-1849, ibid., 661-2v.
121 Ludovico to P.E, 5-3-1849, ibid., 613v-4v.
122 P.E to Whelan, 14-4-1849. LDB 338, 125-7v.
154
NOTES
123 Giuseppe Maria del Cor di Gesu to Michele Antonio, 12-2-1849, Acta
212,602-3; Ponens, Sept. 1850, ibid., 570ff; P.E to Whelan, 16-10-1849,
LDB 338, 341v-3.
124 Ludovico to P.E, 16-1-1850, Acta 212, 634-7v.
125 Hartmann to P.E, 3-8-1850, Acta 212, 589-92v; 3-12-1850, SC Ind. Or.
12, 1147-55.
126 ].M. Duarte et al. to Hartmann, 31-5-1850, B.E.P. 21-8-1850, 395.
127 Hartmann to govt., 4-8-1850, B.E.P. 11-9-1850,465.
128 D'Oliveira to [?], 31-8-1850, SOCG 972, 520.
129 Duarte to P.E, 25-6-1850, ibid., 470-4.
130 Hartmann to P.E, 3-12-1850, SC Ind. Or. 12 (1849-50), 1147-55.
131 Hartmann to de Mello, 26-7-1850, Act 212 (1849-50), 593-4v; to P.E,
3-8-1850, ibid., 589-92v.
132 Persico, Notizie, 22-3-1852, Acta 214, 625.
133 Hartmann to govt., 5-2-1851, B.E.P. 12-3-1851,208.
134 Bombay Catholic Layman, 1-2-1851, SC Ind. Or. 13 (1851-2),214.
135 Minutes, B.E.P. 12-3-1851,209-12.
136 Abelha, encl with Persico to P.E, 16-11-1850, SC Ind. Or. 12 113;
Bombay Catholic Layman, 1-2-1851, SC Ind. Or. 13,214.
137 Hartmann to de Mello, Monumenta Anastasiana II (Luzern, 1940),
117-8.
138 Bombay Catholic Examiner, 1-4-1853, ibid., 116-26.
139 Hartmann to Pius IX, 30-6-1854, SC Ind. Or. 14, 1207-8.
140 Bombay Catholic Examiner, 2-1-1853.
141 Judgement in de Mello et al vs. Hartmann, Monumenta, 570-2.
142 Whelan to P.E, 31-6-1850, SOCG 972; to Pius IX, 31-7-1850, Acta 212,
644.
143 Meurin to P.E, 14-12-1872, Sc Ind. Or. 20, 1796-7.
144 Aiuti to P.E, 30-5-1889, SC Ind. Or. 34, 317-9.
145 Zaleski, Appunti confidenziali, 21-5-1902, AP, NS 261, 280.
146 Duarte to P.E, 21-9-1850, SC Ind. Or. 14, 1061-4.
147 W. Steins, 7-6-1860, SC Ind. Or. 17, 1186-8.
148 Hartmann to President, English College, Lisbon, 14-10-1854, Monu-
menta Anastasiana III (Luzern, 1942), 274-6.
149 Ecclesiastical Despatch to Bombay, 1-10-1851, paras 5-6.
150 G. of I. to Bombay govt., 29-5-1856, B.E.P. 28-6-1858, 388.
151 Bombay govt to Collector, Thana, 10-12-1856, B.E.P. 31-12-1856,
827-8.
152 Ecclesiastical despatch to Bombay, 11-8-1858, para. 9.
Chapter V
1 Campbell, minute, n.d., I.O.R., M.P.P. [Madras Public Proceedings],
30-10-1787,2752-9.
2 Campbell to Bishop of S. Thome, March 1787, M.P.P. 3-3-1787, 310-3.
3 In fact, eight laymen were selected by the Bishop, and four of these were
nominated by the government as syndics. Regulations for the Capuchins,
ibid., 313-4.
155
4 Launay, Histoire des Missions de I'Inde, I, 34 ff.

5 Bishop of Dolicha to Vicar-General, n.d., M.P.P. 28-12-1787, 3243.
6 Conway to Campbell, December 1787, ibid., 3240-2.
7 Campbell to Conway, n.d., ibid., 3250-2.
8 Capuchins to Govt., 20-3-1789; Govt. Resolution, 3-3-1789, M.P.P.
19-5-1789.
9 Ferdinand to P.E, 14-2-1791, AP, SOCP Ind. Or. 67,425-30.
10 Report of 19-2-1791, AP, CP Sin. et Ind. 18, 106£; Congo Part. 23-1-1792,
ibid., 133-53.
11 Report by Bishop and Syndics, n.d., M.P.P. 20-3-1792, 851£.
12 Syndics Adrian de Fries and Miguel Joannes to Govt., 3-4-1792, M.P.P.
3-4-1792, 979f.
13 Dolicha to P.E, 2-5-1793, AP, SOCP Ind. Or. 68, 601-3v.
14 Benjamin de Thonon to P.E, n.d., SOCP Ind. Or. 69 (1796-1801),
216-21v.
15 Commissaire Dumourier, Discours, 3-4-1793, SOCP Ind. Or. 68,594-9.
16 Dolicha to P.E, 2-5-1793, ibid., 601-3v.
17 ibid.
18 Damas to P.E, 29-1-1793, SOCP Ind. Or. 68, 587f.
19 Benjamin to P.E 29-1-1793, ibid., 589-90v.
20 Ristretto, 1-12-1794, Acta 1794, 751 ff.
21 ibid., 763 ff.
22 Nota d1\rchivio, ibid., 767-71.
23 Congo Gen. 1-12-1794, ibid., 759v-61.
24 P.E to Damas, 5-4-1794, AP, Lettere 266, 34v-6; Benjamin to P.E n.d.,
SOCP 69, 216-221v.
25 Benjamin to P.E, n.d., SOCP 69, 216-21v.
26 Dolicha to P.E, 9 January 1796, ibid., 320-6.
27 Circostancias da vizitas que Sra. Sollier Fiz. ao Sr. Padre Benjamin, ibid.,
204.
28 Patent issued by Bishop of Mailapur, 20-6-1795, ibid., 215v.
29 Damas to Bishop of Mailapur, 7-9-1795, 18-9-1795, ibid., 210-10v.
30 Mailapur to Damas, 20-9-1795, ibid., 222f.
31 Damas to Mailapur, 20-9-1795, ibid., 223f.
32 Benjamin to P.E, n.d., ibid. 216-221 v.
33 Dolicha to Boiret and Descouvrieres, 12-2-1801, AP, Sc. Ind. Or. 1,
24-5v.
34 P.E to Benedetto, 3-4-1802, AP, LDB 283, 121v-4.
35 Benedetto to P.E, 20-2-1803, SOCG 911 190-3v.
36 Dolicha to Boiret and Descouvrieres, 12-2-1801, SC Ind. Or 1, 24-5v.
37 Thomas de Noronha to Govt., 24-2-1800, M.P.P. 28-2-1800, 519f.
38 Govt. to Bishop of S. Thome, 19-10-1800, M.P.P. 25-3-1814, 2123f.
39 Jose de Graca to Govt., 28-10-1800, M.P.P. 31-10-1800, 3461£.
40 Dolicha to Boiret and Descouvrieres, 12-2-1801, Sc. Ind. Or. 1, 24-5v.
41 Lambert to Clive, 16-8-1801, M.P.P. Sept. 1801, 3815f.
42 Lambert to Govt., 18-8-1801, ibid., 3820ff.
43 ibid.
44 Marine Board to Govt., 11-9-1806, M.P.P. 19-9-1806, 6467f.
45 Govt. Resolution, M.P.P. 19-9-1806, 6468-71.
156
NOTES
46 Bentinck, minute, 17-9-1807, M.P.P. 20-11-1807, 8070ff.

47 Marcello da Gradisca to P.E, 18-10-1807, SC Ind. Or. 1, 601-3v.
48 Giovanni Battista to P.E, 18-9-1815, SC Ind. Or. 2, 205v.
49 Giovanni Battista to P.E, 29-7-1814, ibid., 64-4v.
50 Eustachio to P.E, 25-1815, ibid., 124-5v.
51 P.E to Benedetto, 3-9-1814, LDB 295, 77.
52 Benedetto to P.E, 3-1-1815, SC Ind. Or. 2, 150-2.
53 Edward Pelling et al. to P.E, 4-3-1815, ibid., 130-40v.
54 Acta CP Sin. and Ind. 20, 5-3-1816, 114v-6v.
55 Instructiones, ibid., 491-4.
56 Giovanni Battista to P.E, 13-10-1816, SC Ind. Or. 2, 362-84.
57 Hebert to P.E, 14-2-1817, Acta 194,317.
58 Giovanni Battista to Alcantara, 14-11-1819, SC Ind. Or. 2, 204-204v.
59 Alcantara to P.E, 3-12-1819, Acta 194, 335v-42v.
60 Avvisii e Regole, 30-11-1819, Acta 194,344-5.
61 Fidele to Pier Benedetto, 7-12-1819, ibid., 350-2.
62 Catholic soldiers to Alcantara, 2-10-1819, SC Ind. Or. 2, 596-7.
63 O'Reilly to Poynter, 1-12-1819, ibid., 714-21; Alcantara to Poynter,
26-1-1820, SC Ind. Or. 3, 111.
64 Presidents and Confraternity members to Fidele, 3-11-1822, SC Ind. Or. 3,
204-5.
65 Lorenzo to P.E, 8-9-1826, SC Ind. Or. 4, 366-71v.
66 Lewis Thompson et al. to P.E, 4-5-1823, SC Ind. Or. 3, 653-4v.
67 P.E to Prefect, Madras, 16-10-1824, LDB 305, 700v-1.
68 Poynter to P.E, 30-11-1824, Acta 194, 364-5.
69 Dubois to Nuncio, Paris, 10-10-1823, 13-11-1824, Acta 194, 352,
362.
70 Onorato to P.E, 17-9-1825, ibid., 353v-4v.
71 T.N. Swaminathan, D. Rayalu, D. Pillai, et al. to P.E, 30-12-1825, SC Ind.
Or. 4, 206-206v.
72 P. Malayappan et aI., to Giovanni Battista, 10-5-1825, ibid., 143-52.
73 Memorandum, n.d., Acta 194, 355.
74 Eustachio to P.E, 10-4-1826, ibid., 355-6v.
75 Lorenzo to P.E, 8-9-1826, SC Ind. Or. 4, 366-71v.
76 Heads of Mucua Caste, Royapuram and 'Principal Proprietors' of the
church to P.E, n.d., ibid. 448-53v.
77 E Lamoury to P.E, 20-4-1826, ibid., 345-6.
78 Micara to P.E, 18-3-1828, Acta 194, 358.
79 Bramston to P.E 28-4-1830, SC Ind. Or. 4, 617-8.
80 Acta 194, 316ff.
81 Confraternity Presidents to P.E, 26-10-1832, ibid., 77-8v.
82 Alcantara to P.E, 29-9-1834, 13-11-1834, ibid., 334, 399-400.
83 N. Kowalsky, NZM, VIII (1952), 120.
84 P.E to O'Connor, 9-8-1834, LBD 315, 445-5v.
85 Sir Alexander Johnson to Lord Clifford, 25-8-1834, SOCG 949, 415.
86 Ibid., 154.
87 Alcantara to P.E, 26-8-1835, Sc Ind. Or. 5, 586.
88 Friend of India, 8-10-1835.
89 O'Connor, note, SOCG 953, 215v.
157
90 Episcopal Governor to Gentlemen Directors of St John's, 9-10-1835, SC

Ind. Or. 7, 257-9.
91 G. of I. to Madras Govt., 19-10-1836, M.E.P. Nov. 1836,507-19.
92 Beauclair to Lt. Col. Dalgairns, 24-9-1935, M.M.P. [lOR, Madras
Military Proceedings] 27-9-1835, 14181-2.
93 Dalgairns to Beauclair, 27-9-1835, ibid.
94 Beauclair to G.O.c., Mysore, 30-9-1835, ibid.
95 Govt. resolution, ibid.
96 Elphinstone to Auckland, 12-3-1838, lOP, MS Eur. F87/2, G23.
97 Auckland to Elphinstone, 30-3-1838, ibid.
98 'Memorandum of the Funds and other particulars of the Capuchin
church, etc.', SC Ind. Or. 5, 605-6v.
99 O'Connor to Weld, 10-2-1836, ibid., 670-3; Luigi's testimonial, 12-2-1836,
ibid., 836.
100 Memorandum of the Funds, ibid., 605-6v.
101 O'Connor to Bishop of Helicarnassus in partibus, 6-8-1836, ibid., 770-4.
102 Dubois to P.E, 21-1-183[8], SC Ind. Or. 6, 33.
103 J.M. Pereyra, G. Herrick et aI., to P.E, 17-2-1838, ibid., 308-9v.
104 Andandarayan Mudali et al. to Pope, 25-9-1838, 1-10-1838 ibid.,
546-7, 550-1.
105 Bishop of Drusipara to P.E, 11-11-1837, ibid.
106 O'Connor to P.E, 11-11-1837,233-4.
107 G.M. Sinnappa Pillai to Fr Michel d'Onnion, 25-11-1838, SC Ind. Or. 7,
99-100.
108 Boat People to Marine Board, 7-10-1835, 10-12-1835, SC Ind. Or. 5,
611-2.
109 Headmen and Boatowners of Royapuram to P.E, 23-2-1838, ICRA [Irish
College Rome Archives], New Cullen IV, iv, 3c.
110 Moriarty to P.E 8-9-1838, SC Ind. Or. 6, 527-30.
111 Carew to Cullen, n.d., ICRA New Cullen, IV, iv Fi, 9.
112 Carew to P.E 30-8-1839, SC Ind. Or. 7,251-4v.
113 Keating to Bishop, n.d., M.E.P. 5-3-1839, 151.
114 Sheriff to Bishop, 18-2-1839, ibid., 152-3.
115 Sir Robert Comyn to govt., 11-3-1839, M.E.P. Mar. 1839,203-4.
116 P. Doyle to G.O.C., 28-10-1840, M.E.P. 24-11-1840, 88-9.
117 G. of I. to Madras govt., 9-12-1840, M.E.P. Jan. 1841,2-3.
118 Carew to Govt., 4-1-1841, ibid. 57-65. Besides the Irish troops in the
British army serving in India the Company had its own regiments of
British troops, and recruited directly in Ireland. The problem was
eventually resolved with the issue of the Douai Bible and The Garden of
the Soul to Roman Catholic soldiers in the Queen's Army. Olive
Anderson, 'The Growth of Christian Militarism in Mid-Victorian
Britain', English Historical Review, lxxxvi (1971), 46-72
119 Auckland, minute, 30 Jan. 1841, India Ecclesiastical Proceeds, 10-2-1041,
9.
120 G. of I. to Madras govt., 9-2-1841, M.E.P. 10-2-1841, 14.
121 Ecclesiastical Despatch to Madras, 21-9-1842.
122 Ecclesiastical Despatch to Madras, 6-3-1844; Ecclesiastical Letter from
Madras, 31-5-1843.
158
NOTES
123 Fennelly to P.E, 23-11-1843, SC Ind. Or. 9, 563-5.

124 Ecclesiastical despatch to Madras, 1-4-1840, 14.
125 Fennelly to P.E, 10-7-1845, SC Ind. Or. 10, 473-82v.
126 Xavier to Pope, 11-11-1847, SC Ind. Or, 11, 523-5.
127 P.D. Sarouvanitomarayan et aI., to Pope, 13-12-1847, ibid.
128 J. Edwards to Archbishop of Drogheda, 20-3-1851, SC Ind. Or. 13,352-7.
129 Fennelly to P.E, 2-3-1878, SC Ind. Or. 21, 1129-30.
130 Acta 234, 566v.
131 Dubbio 1, ibid., 238; Acta 12-1-1869, ibid., 252.
Chapter 6
1 This process has been traced in detail by Susan Bayly, Saints, Goddesses
and Kings, although her detail is a little strained when she suggests,
335n, that Colpetty, where one of the Parava merchants trading with
Ceylong lived, was in Tamil Nadu, and a British misreading for
'Kayalpatanam'. Colpetty is of course in Ceylon, or Sri Lanka, and is
now a suburb of Colombo. (Incidentally, the high-tech home of Arthur
C. Clarke is in Colpetty.)
2 Bertrand to Provincial, Dec. 1837-Jan. 1838, ibid., 1-iii-1, ARSI (Jesuit
Archives, Rome) Missio Madur,. 1-ii-13.
3 Bertrand to Provincial, 2-4-1838, ibid. 1-iii-5.
4 Martin to Father-General, 4-1-1840, ibid. 1-v-1.
5 Bertrand to Father-General, 2-5-1838, ibid. 1-iii-7.
6 Bertrand to Provincial, 2-4-1838, ibid., 5; Garnier to Brumauld, 9-6-1838,
ibid., 8.
7 Garnier to Provincial, 29-7-1838, SJ Toulouse (Jesuit Archives,
Toulouse), E Md. 1; to his parents, 29-7-1838, ibid.; Garnier to his
family, 15-11-1838, ibid.
8 Garnier to Father-General, 12-2-1839, ARSI, Missio Madur., 1-iv-3.
When copies of Garnier's letters were collected in his home province with
a view to publication, his language was softened: 'hommes un peu
sauvages, et d'un humeur un peu inquiete'). SJ Toulouse, E Md.l.
9 Missio Madur. 1-iv-3.
10 ibid.
11 Martin, MS journal, SJ Toulouse, E Md. 7.
12 S.B. Kaufmann, 'A Christian Caste in Hindu Society: Religious Leader-
ship and Social Conflict among the Paravas of Southern Tamilnadu',
Modern Asian Studies, XV (1981).
13 Osservazioni, 1854, Missio Madur. 2-x-2.
14 Neves. answers to queries, 24-12-1818, Tamil Nadu Archives 128,
1966-83.
15 Martin to Bertrand, 14-7-1838, ibid., EMd.1, 101-113.
16 Martin, MS Journal, EMd. 7, 14-10-1838.
17 ibid., 5-11-1838.
18 ibid., 29-11-1838.
19 ibid., 14-4-1839.
20 ibid., 18-4-1839.
159
21 ibid., 21-4-1839.
22 Martin to his brother, 24-6-1839, F. Md.1, 194.
23 Martin, journal, 23-24 April, 1839, 2-7-39.
24 Martin, journal, 1-5-39 and 26/30-7-39.
25 Martin died on 30 May 1840, Ms 'Le Pere Alexandre-Fidele Martin,
1799-1840. Esquisse historique', Sj Toulouse, BA; MS 'Historical Notes
on Tinnevelly District 1',373-7, Madurai Mission Archives, Sacred Heart
College, Shembaganur, Tamil Nadu.
26 Bertrand to ?, 10-2-1840, Sj Toulouse F. Md. 2, 23-9.
27 joseph Gury, Sj, to his brother, 26-2-1840, ibid., 46-68.
28 Bertrand to Provincial, 16-11-1840, ibid., 144-8.
29 Bertrand to Provincial, 6-8-1841, ibid., 249-60.
30 ibid.
31 Castanier to Provincial, 8-11-1849, F. MdA, 136-51.
32 Wilmet to Provincial, 31-3-1843, F. Md. 3, 25-31; to Father-General,
26-6-1843, Mission Madur. 1-viii-7.
33 Roothaan to Bertrand, 23-11-1843, ARSI, Reg. P. Gen., Missiones II,
236-7.
34 Bertrand to Roothaan, Feb. 1844, Missio Madur., 1-ix-5.
35 Roothaan to Bertrand, 18-1-1841, ARSI, Missiones II, 13-5.
36 Bertrand to Roothaan, 15-4-1841, Missio Madur., I-vi-8.
37 Roothaan to Bertrand, 28-12-1841 ARSI, Missiones II, 72.
38 Acta 208; Carlo Merces de Melo, The Recruitment and Formation of the
Native Clergy in India (16th-19th Century); an Historical-Canonical
Study (Lisbon, 1955), 257ff.
39 'Oeuvres de la Mission de Madure pendant l'annee 1845', SC Ind. Or. 10,
676.
40 'Remarques sur les Eclaircissements de Mr. Luquet', encl. with Roothaan
to Propaganda Fide, ibid., 244-64.
41 Roothaan to Canoz, 29-4-1846, ARSI, Episolae III, 463-6.
42 Louis Tassin, to Provincial, 19-7-1854, F. MD. 150.
43 Memo., Missio Madur, l-xxiii-lA.,
44 Canoz to P.F., 1-3-1855, SC Ind. Or. 15 (1855-56), 350f.
45 Fransoni to Roothaam, 29-1-1851, Missio Madur, l-xvi-3.
46 S.B. Kaufmann, op. cit., 218.
47 Combes to ?, 14-1-1845, F. Md. 3, 232-8.
48 At Periyatalei, Pietro Mecatti, to Provincial, 10-1-1849, F. Md. 4, 90-101.
49 Canoz to Roothaan, 3-4-1848, Missio Madur. l-xiii-5.
50 Ranquet to?, 4-8-1850, F. Md. 4,203-12.
51 Mecatti to Roothaan, 9-9-1850, Missio Madur. l-xv-6; Puccinelli to
Roothaan, 29-8-1858, ibid., 2-iii-20.
52 Punnayakayal village. Castanier to Provincial, 8-11-1849, F. Md. 4,
136-51.
53 Mecatti to Roothaan, 9-9-1850, Missio Madur. l-xv-6.
54 Verdier to Wilmet, 17-5-1850, F. Md. 150.
55 Verdier to Canoz, 21-10-1851, ibid., 273-81; Castanier to Roothaan,
9-5-1852, Missio Madur. l-xvii-6; Puccinelli, Osservazioni, 1854, ibid.
2-x-2.
56 Bayly, Saints, 356-7.
160
NOTES
57 Verdier to Provincial, 12-5-1858, F. Md. 150.

58 Canoz to Gregoire, 8-5-1854, SHC, MS Historical Notes on Tinnevelly
District.
59 Holy Office Resolution, 16-3-1854, SC Ind. Or. 14,241-2.
60 Cenni encl. with H. Bruni, SJ, to Father-General, 16-5-1863, SC In. Or.
18,662-4.
61 Canoz to Father-General, 18-9-1864, Missio Madur. 2-vi-20; Canoz to
Provincial, 10-4-1866, F. Md. 150.
62 Tassis to Father-General, 16-1-1873, Missio Madur, 3-v-2.
63 Canoz to Provincial, 3-4-1873, F. Md. 150.
64 Bruni to Father-General, 5-5-1875, Missio Madur. 3-vii-34.
65 Canoz to P.F., 8-9-1871, SC Ind. Or. 20, 1177.
66 Barbier to Provincial, 28-6-1880, F. Md. 150.
67 Varanganari church. Canoz to Father-General, 4-4-1881, 2-7-1881,
Missio Madur. 4-v-17, 26; Canoz to Sooseya Pillai et aI., 2-8-1881, SC
Ind. Or, 23, 258; Canoz to P.F., 25-8-1881, ibid.
68 Kalleikulam church. Father-General to Canoz, 1-4-1875, Missio Madur.
Gall. II, 82f.
69 Father-General to Canoz, 20-7-1875, F. Md. 150.
70 Barbier to Father-General, Nov. 1876, Missio Madur. 3-viii-79.
71 Father-General to Canoz, 20-7-1876, F. Md. 150.
72 Propaganda Fide to Petitioners, 16-12-1874, SHC MS Historical Notes on
TinneveIIy District I, 367.
73 Guchen, memorandum, June 1875, ARSI, Missio Madur, 3-ix-14.
74 Canoz to P.F., 26-1-1885, SC Ind. Or. 24.
75 Petition from Catholics of Kombady, n.d., ibid. 27.
76 Petition from high-caste Catholics of Ariampatty, n.d., ibid.
77 Verdier to Canoz, 17-9-1877, ibid. 21 (1875-8), 964-6.
78 Petition from Catholics of Velanganny, n.d., ibid. 27.
79 Barthe to PF, 18-6-1891, ibid., 36.
80 Verdier, memorandum, Missio Madur. 5-iii-9.
81 Verdier to Provincial, 21-8-1893, F. Md. 150; Verdier to Father-General,
5-9-1893, ibid. 5-viii-9.
82 Henrique Jose Reed da Silva remained Bishop of Mailapur until his
resignation in 1897. Fortunato da Almeida, Historia da Igre;a em
Portugal, iii (Lisbon, 1970) 632.
83 Barthe to P.F., 16-6-1891, SC Ind. Or. 36.
85 Verdier to Provincial, 17-9-1893, ibid.
87 F. Selvanader to Superintendent of Police, Tinnevelly, 7-12-1894, and to
Bishop, 7-12-1894, SHC, Letters of Fr. F. Selvanather, S.]., 1890-1894. (In
the Jesuit catalogues of priets we often find that the spelling of Indian
names is different from that used by the persons themselves. Which was
the more correct is another matter.)
88 Deposition, 17-7-1890, SHC, Tuticorin Diary I.
89 M.L. Corera, Roche Victoria et aI., to Caussanel, 29-9-1891, SHC,
Tuticorin Diary II.
90 Verdier to Caussanel, 19-7-1891, ibid.
161
91 Verdier to Caussanel, 30-8-1891,21-2-1892, ibid.

92 Headman to Zaleski, 23-10-1893, Bayly, Saints, 374.
93 Verdier to Caussanel, 19-11-1891, SHC, Tuticorin Mission Diary II.
94 Bayly, Saints, 374.
95 Tuticorin Missionary Diaries, passim.
96 Peyret to Superior, 9-5-1895, SHC, Letters of Fr. Peyret, SJ, 1890-1897.
97 Verdier to Father-General, 23-4-1895, Missio Madur., 5-x-17.
98 Missionary Diary entry, 28-6-1896, SHC Tuticorin Diary, 1893-1910.
99 Mission Diary entry, 20-9-1896, ibid.
100 Bayly, Saints, 376-7.
101 Vicar-General to Cros, 23-2-1892; ARSI, Missio Assist. Gall. III
(1892-4).
102 Barbier to Father-General, 3-2-1891, Missio Madur. 5-vii-16; A. Jean, Le
Madure. Vancienne et la nouvelle mission, I (1894), 495.
103 Xavier Motha to ?, n.d.; V.R. Motha to D.P.!., 26-6-1891, Tuticorin
Diaries II.
104 C. Motha to Caussanel, 26-8-1891, ibid.
105 X. Motha Fernandez to D.P.!., 25-6-1891; X Motha to [Verdier],
19-8-1891; Verdier to Xavier Motha, 24-8-1891; Declaration of apology,
22-1-1892; ibid.
106 Galien to Provincial, 4-9-1894, E Md. 150.
108 Barbier's announcement, 19-1-1891, SHC, Besse, Mission Diary; Verdier
to Caussanel, 3-2-1892, Tuticorin Diary.
109 Bayly, Saints, 444.
110 Judgement, SC NS 166, 408-13; lOR, P & Jl6/415/372; Verdier to
Propaganda Fide, 14-1-1896, end Madras Mail, 6-12-1895, ibid. 425;
Verdier to Father-General, 9-12-1895, Missio Madur. 5-x-28.
111 District Magistrate to govt., 19-10-1895, Madras Jud. Procs. 26-11-1895,
2451-2.
112 Father-General to P.E, 6-1-1896, SC NS 166 (1899) 420.
113 Lassus to Superior, 18-7-1896, SHC, Letters of Fr. L. Lassus, 1890-897.
114 Lassus to Superior, 1-6-1900, SHC, Manapad Letters, 1899-1900.
115 Barthe to Provincial, 20-12-1898, F. Md. 150.
116 Diary entry, 15-10-1903, Tuticorin Diary, 1893-1910.
117 Zaleski to P.F., 2-1-1904, SC Ns 326, 529-32. Teotonio Manuel Ribeiro
Vieira de Castro was appointed Bishop of Mailapur in 1899, succeeding
Bishop Antonio Jose de Sousa Barroso, who spent only two years at
Mailapur. Almeida, Historia da Igreja, iii, (Lisbon, 1970), 632.
119 Barthe to P.F., 17-12-1895, SC NS 71, 721-3).
120 Louis Lacombe to Father-General, 31-1-1899, Missio Madur., 6-ii-15.
121 G.A. Oddie, Hindu and Christian in South-East India, London, 1991,
148-50.
122 G. Vaidyanatha Aiyer to Provincial, 19-3-1895, F. Md. 72.
123 Zaleski, Appunti Confidenziali, 25-5-1892, SC NS 261, 228-35.
162
NOTES
Postscript
1 See Chapter I, notes 29, 30.
2 Grosjean to Martin, 18-9-1894, Missio Bengal 3-xvi-16.
3 Zaleski, Appunti Con(idenziali, 25-5-1902, 255v, 236, SCNS 261 (1903).
4 Zaleski, Appunti Con(idenziali, 25-5-1903.
5 Institute of Development, Education, Action and Studies (IDEAS) Centre
Madurai. A survey of Discrimination Against Dalit Christians in Tamil
Nadu conducted by Fr Antony Raj and published in August 1992.
6 ibid., and essay Children of a Lesser God Madurai 1992.
7 ibid.
163
Bibliography
Major Works of Reference

Ambrosius a S. Teresia, Nomenclator Missionarium Ordinis Carmelitanum
Discalceatorum, Rome, 1944. Catologus Patrum et Fratrum Societatis
Jesu in Missione Madurensi ab an. 1837 ad an. 1913, Trichinopoly, 1913.
Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide seu Decreta Instruc-
tiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus, 2 vols, Rome, 1907.
F. Coutinho, Le Regime paroissial des diocese de rite latin de l'Inde des
origines (xvie siecle) a nos jours, Louvain 1958.
Fortunato de Almeida (ed. Dabiao Peres), Historia da Igrega em Portugal, 4
vols, Lisbon, 1967-71 (esp. vol. iii).
E.R. Hambye, A Bibliography on Christianity in India, Church History
Association of India, Delhi, 1976.
N. Kowalsky and]. Metzler, Inventory of the Historical Archives of the
Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples or 'de Propaganda
Fide', Studia Urbaniana, xviii, Rome, 1983.
Antonio da Silva Rego, 0 Padroado Portuguesa no Oriente e a sua
Historiografia (1838-1950), Lisbon, 1978.
Robert Streit and Johannes Dindiger (eds), Bibliotheca Missionum, viii,
Missionsliteratur Indiens und Indonesiens, 1800-1899, Munster, 1938.
Other Works
Ambrosius a S. Theresia, Hierarchia Carmelitana seu Series Illustrium
Praesulum Ecclesticorum ex Ordine Carmelitanum Discalceatorum.: iii,
De Preasulum Ecclesiae Magni Mogulis seu Bombayensis, 1936 Rome; iv,
De Praesulibus Missionis Malabariae. Pars Prior, Ecclesia Verapolitana,
Rome, 1939.
Kenneth Ballhatchet, Race, Sex and Class under the Raj. Imperial Attitudes
and Policies and their Critics, 1793-1905, London, 1980.
Kenneth Ballhatchet, Missionaries, Empire and Society: the Jesuit Mission in
Calcutta, 1834-1846, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,
vii (1978), 18-34.
165
Kenneth Ballhatchet, 'The French Revolution and the French Missionaries of

Pondicherry', in K.S. Mathew (ed.) Studies in Maritime History,
Pondichery, 1990, 101-11.
Kenneth Ballhatchet, 'French Missionaries and Indian Society: the Jesuit
Mission to Madure, 1837-1902', in Marie-Claude Buxtorf (ed.), Les
Relations historiques et culturellles entre la France et l'Inde, XVIIe-XXe
sii!Cle, I Sainte Clotilde, La Reunion, 1987,227-48.
Kenneth Ballhatchet, 'Roman Catholic Missionaries and Indian Society; the
Carmelites in Bombay, 1786-1857', in Kenneth Ballhatchet and John
Harrison, East India Company Studies, Hong Kong, 1986, 255-297.
Susan Bayly (nee Kaufmann), 'Hindu Kingship and the Origin of Community:
Religion, State and Society in Kerala, 1750-1850', Modern Asian Studies,
xviii (1984), 177-213.
Susan Bayly, Saints, Goddesses and Kings. Muslims and Christians in South
Indian Society, 1700-1900, Cambridge, 1989.
C. Becker, Indisches Kastenwesen und Chirstliche Mission, Cologne, 1921.
Joseph Bertrand, La Mission du Madure, 4 vols, Paris, 1850-4.
Joseph Bertrand, Lettres edifiantes et curieuses de la nouvelle mission du Madure,
Paris, 1865. Leon Besse, La Mission du Madure, Trichinopoly, 1914.
Duncan B. Forrester, Caste and Christianity. Attitudes and Policies on Caste
of Anglo-Saxon Protestant Missionaries in India, London, 1980.
R. Boudens, 'The Difficult Growth of Catholic Life in Ceylon', in J. Metzler
(ed.), Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum, iiiJl
(Rome, 1975), 433-60.
M. D'Elia, 'I;Abolizione del giuramento controli riti malabarici', La civilita
cattoloica, 1940, 331-4,424-31.
Robert E. Frykenberg, 'The Impact of Conversion and Social Reform upon
Society in South India during the Late Company Period', in C.H. Philips
and M.D. Wainwright (eds), Indian Society and the Beginnings of
Modernization, c. 1830-1850, London, 1976.
Robert E. Frykenberg, 'On the Study of Conversion Movements. A Review
Article and a Theoretical Note', Indian Economic and Social History
Review, xvii (1981), 121-38.
Robert E. Frykenberg, 'On Roads and Riots in Tinnevelly', South Asia, iv
(1982), 34-52.
T.A. Gallo, Suppetiae, 3 vols, Rome, 1872.
J.H. Gense, The Church at the Gateway ofIndia, 1720-1960, Bombay, 1960.
Robert L. Hardgrave, The Nadars of Tamilnad. The Political Culture of a
Community in Change, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969.
Ernest Hull, Bombay Mission History and the Padroado Question, 2 vols,
Bombay, n.d.
Auguste Jean, Le Madure. L'ancienne et la nouvelle mission, ii, Bruges, 1894.
H. Josson, La Mission du Bengale occidental, 2 vols, Bruges, 1921.
Susan B. Kaufmann, 'A Christian Caste in Hindu Society. Religious
Leadership and Social Conflict among the Paravas of Southern Tamil-
nadu', Modern Asia Studies, nv (1981), 203-34.
Nikolaus Kowalsky, 'Die errichtung des Apostolischen Vikariates Madras
nach den Akten des Propagaarchivs', Neue Zeitshcrift fur Missionswis-
senschaft, viii (1952), 36-48, 119-26, 193-210.
166
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Louis Lacombe, L'Oeuvre de la conversion des hautes castes au college St

Joseph, Trichinopoly, Rome, n.d.
Louis Lacombe, Rao-Sahib Mahadeva Arya, ou Ie Brahme converti, Bruges,
n.d.
A. Launay, Histoire des missions de l'Inde. Pondichery, Maissour, Coimba-
tour,4 vols, Paris, 1894.
Henry Davison Love, Vestiges of Old Madras, 3 vols, London, 1913.
Carlo Merces de Melo, The Recruitment and Formation of the Native Clergy
in India (16th-19th Century). An Historical-Canonical Study, Lisbon,
1955.
Josef Metzler, 'Die Aufnahme des Apostolischen Breves "Multa Praeclare", in
Indien', Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft under Religionswissenschaft,
xxxviii (1954), 295-310.
Josef Metzler, 'Die Patronatswirren in Indien unter Erzbischof Silva Torres
(1843-1849)', Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft und Religionswis-
senschaft, xlii (1958), 292-308.
Josef Metzler, 'Das Salsette-Dekret von 1839 und seine Bedeutung fUr
Bombay', Neue Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft, x (1954) 109-22,
194-207.
]. Metzler (ed.), Sacrae Congreationist de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum,
5 vols, Rome, 1971-5.
S. Muthiah, Madras Discovered. A Historical Guide to Looking Around,
Supplemented with Tales of 'Once upon a City', New Delhi, 1987.
Geoffrey A. Oddie, 'Christians in the Census. Tanjore and Trichinopoly
Districts, 1871-1901', in N.G. Barrier (ed.), The Census in British India.
New Perspecties, Delhi, 1981.
Geoffrey A. Oddie, Hindu and Christian in South-East India, London, 1991.
Geoffrey A. Oddie (ed.), Religion in South Asia. Religious Conversion and
Revival Movements in South Asia in Medieval and Modern Times, Delhi,
1977.
Geoffrey A. Oddie, Social Protest in India. British Protestant Missionaries
and Social Reforms, 1850-1900, Delhi, 1979.
Ignazio Persico, Memoria sulla schisma indo-portoghese [Rome], 1853.
Paulinus a S Bartholomaeo, Systema Brahmanicum Liturgicum Mythologi-
cum Civile, Rome 1791.
Paulinua a S Bartholomaeo, India Orientalis Christiana, Rome 1794.
A. Vath, Die deutschen Jesuiten in Indien. Geschichte der Mission von
Bombay (1854-1920), Regensburg, 1920.
H. Whitehead, India. A Sketch of the Madura Mission, London, 1891.
Ladislao M. Zaleski, Ceylon et les Indes, Paris, 1891.
Ladislao M. Zaleski, Epistolae ad Missionarios, 2 vols, Mangalore, 1914,
1915.
167
Index
Aiuti, Archbishop (Apostolic Candido, Father (Carmelite, Vicar-

Delegate) General of Malabar)
seeks compromise 42, 43 opposes Ferreira's policy 43, 44
warns Ferreira 40, 41 ordered to Rome 45
Alcantara, Bishop (Vicar Apostolic to sexual accusations 45
Mughal Empire) 24-5, 50, Canoz, Bishop Alexis, S. J. (Vicar
52-4,57,58, 90, 91-3, 98-9 Apostolic under Propaganda
and Fisher caste 27 Fide) 125, 126, 129, 130, 131
granted government stipend 17 Capuchins in Madras
and seminary for Bombay 59, 76 conflicts among 82. 85. 90, 92
Antony, Father Michael (Italian financial affairs of 82, 83
Carmelite, Vicar-General) and Propaganda Fide 79, 81, 82
supported by low-caste 62, 63, 64 Carew, Father Patrick (Bishop of
opposed by upper class 61 Madras)
and Whelan 65-7 claims of 105-7
appointed Vicar Apostolic in Carmelites in Bombay
Mangalore 75 anti-Italian feeling 64, 66, 70
Archbishops of Goa 2, 4, 22, 48, 49, competition with Indian priests 47
50,51,54,55,58,59 conflicts among Carmelites 62-4,
69
Battista, Father Giovanni (Capuchin conflicts with Padroado 49,50,51,
Prefect) 88-92 52, 53-4, 55-6, 59
complaints against 95-7 criticisms of incompetence of 63
Bayly, Susan 19, 134 effect of changes in jurisdiction 48
Belgian Jesuits future considered by Propaganda
and caste 12, 141 Fide 36, 37, 69, 76
and seminary for Indian priests 12, ordered to withdraw 74
141 and popularity with lower classes
Benedict XIV, Pope 8, 108, 111, 124 50, 53, 54, 55, 61
Bertrand, Father Joseph, S. J. Carmelites in Kerala (see also
(Superior at Madurai) 9, 10, Prendergast, Saverio,
113, 120, 123, 125 Stabellini, Ludovico)
and Irish 113, 121, 123 Bishop Raimondo 23-5
caste as social 124 conflicts among 23-4, 35, 36, 37,
memorandum on caste 125, 128, 38
136 Father Nicola 29
Board of Control 18, 20, 21, 22 Father Prospero 23-5, 27
169
and finance 24, 25 Clement XII, Pope 8

and Fisher caste 26-7, 29-31, 42 Cochin, Diocese of (see also Ferreira)
and Propaganda Fide 24-5, 27, 28, Fisher caste priests 37, 38-45
31, 35, 36-8 Concordat 4, 5, 38, 132, 133, 135
and sex 24, 25 and double jurisdiction 132, 133
Caste interim, not implemented 75
caste rivalries 31, 34, 39,40,41, suspension of Padroado dioceses 4,
42,43 32, 59, 60, 100, 101
Catholics as a separate caste 11 Conflicts over jurisdiction
Catholics as predominantly low- Madras 80, 84, 86, 104-5
caste 6 Mattancheri 32, 34
and 1st Vatican Council 11, 129 and Pope Gregory XVI 3
and Jesuits 8-9 and role of lay people 5, 6
and the priesthood 9, 11-12 and socio-economic change 7
and Protestant missionaries 7 transfer of three churches to
and Roman Catholic missionaries Padroado 32
7 Court of Directors 15, 16, 17, 18,20,
and St Thomas Christians 7 22
Vellalas 5, 9 changes in Bombay jurisdiction 48,
Caste conflicts 50, 51, 54, 58, 68
in Kerala 26 use of law courts for transfers 73,
views of Catholic church elite in 77
India 39-40 Roman Catholic chaplains 107
in Tamil Nadu 115, 116, 117, 128,
138 DalitslParias 142, 143
within Parava Caste 116, 122, Dubois, Abbe (Missions Etrangeres)
123,133 and Jesuits 3
Caste in Madurai mission 7-12 awards for public service 17, 18
Benedict XIV's ruling 8, 108, 111, on Irish missionaries 103
124
Brahman conversions 7, 111, 112 East India Company 13-22
the oath for Jesuits of 1739 8, 124 and Catholic military chaplains
Parava caste 112, 116 18-22, 59, 93, 100-1, 107,
Catholic missionaries (see also 114
different orders) and conflicts of jurisdiction 5, 6
and caste 3 Hinduism, influence on Roman
controversies among 3 Catholicism 19, 20
Irish on Italians 63, 65, 69 and Indian Catholics 13
Italians on Irish 63, 70 in Kerala 15-16
Caussanel, Father Adrian, S. J. in Madras 15, 17
caste-free conversions by 136-7 and Padroado 13, 22
and Catholic chapel 138 and Propaganda Fide 16
and new headman 134 and Protestant missionaries 14,
supports Paria scholars 137 99
Champenois, Bishop Nicholas 80 and religious grievances 6, 13
and French Revolution 83, 84, 87 religious neutrality of 14, 20
Civil Courts, Role of and Roman Catholic missionaries
for Capuchin Superior 91 14,15,16,17
for Catholic laity 92 and seminaries 16, 21, 58-9
170
INDEX
East India Company and French Hindu-Catholic cooperation in

Capuchins 117, 128
and diplomatic expediency 79, 80, Irish attitudes to 105
84 Jesuits' car festivals 134-5
and Padroado 79, 82, 84 Fisher caste in Kerala (Mukkuvan)
East India Company in Bombay 26
decisions made by magistrates 58, Father Pasquale Baylon 29, 30-2
76 and high castes 26, 27, 43
decisions moved to law courts 72, and Padroado 31, 32, 34
77 as priests 26, 27, 30, 35, 37
and dual jurisdiction 52, 55, 56, 57 and socio-economic change 26,
and lay participation 66, 67-8, 74, 44
76 Fisher caste in Madras
and low castes 76, 77-8 as Catholics 79
and Padroado 48 and French priest 87-8
policy of consulting parishioners and Indian priests 87-8, 90, 92
by 59-60 Irish and Fisher Church of 104
and Propaganda Fide 48 supported by Marine Board
and social conflict 53 79-80,88
instigated by higher classes 56, Fishers 6
60, 64, 65 and Jesuits 7
instigated by lower classes 53, in Kerala (Mukkuvan) 6
55,57,60 ordination of 8-9
and support for lay Catholics 73, in Tamil Nadu (Para va) 6
74,77 Forrester, Professor Duncan 7
supports Indian Catholics 50, 51, Fortini, Bishop Luigi
55 and Indian priests 71
and transfers of jurisdiction 48, and lay Catholics 64, 65
72, 73, 74, 77 and Michael Antony 61, 62, 63
and use of magistrates 57, 58, 60 French Jesuits
European missionaries 1-5 conservatism of 10-11
racial attitudes of 7-12, 81-2, 84, contrasted with Irish priests 10
86 French revolution
Eustachio, Father effect on missions 3, 10-11, 112,
accepted by Padroado 89 130, 131
and financial accusations 88
and low-caste support 89, 90 Goanese priests (see also Indian
only Tamil-speaking Capuchin 94 priests)
and sexual accusations 88 and caste 11
and Jesuits 12
Fennelly, Bishop John Goanese priests and Indian laity
opposes caste feeling 107-9 Jesuit distrust of 129, 130, 131,
Ferreira, Joao Gomes (Bishop of 132
Cochin) tolerant attitude of 131-2, 133
attitude to class 38 Gregory XVI, Pope 3
and caste 38-44
and Zaleski 43, 44, 45-6 Hartmann, Bishop Anastasius
Festivals (Capuchin)
caste rivalry during 115 and East India Company 72, 77
171
and Indian priests 70-1 Irish missionaries 3

and lay participation 70, 72, 74 and British authorities 3
support of upper classes by 72 contrasted with French Jesuits 10
High-caste Catholics 38, 43-5 favoured because English-speaking
and Ferreira 38-40 3
and Fisher caste 39-40 Irish missionaries and lay Catholics
Nazareth chapel and 45 caste and class in church 104
as priests 38, 39 language problems with 102
and Protestant style liturgy 102-3,
Indian Catholics 104
complain about Bombay and secular dress 103
Carmelites 47-8, 66 Italian Capuchins in Madras 88-99
complain about Indian priests 50 Bishop Alcantara's solutions for
lay participation 66, 67-8, 74 92,93,98-9
low-caste support Michael Antony complaints against 90-5
62 problems with discipline for 88
parishioners to choose their priests replaced by Irish Bishop 99
51
upper caste/class support Jati Talaivan (see Parava headman)
Padroado 66, 68 117, 119
Indian laymen 1 Jesuits (see also Belgian! French
role in conflicts of jurisdiction 5-6 Jesuits)
Indian priests (see also Goanese and caste 7-8. 9-10, 11
priests) and Goanese priests 12
and caste 23, 30-2 return to Madurai 3, 7
and caste prejudices 12 and seminary for Indian priests 12
caste status of 8-9 Jesuits in Bombay 75, 77-8
and Catholics of different castes/ Jesuits and Brahmans in Tamil Nadu
classes 76 139-40
competition with Bombay Brahman conversions 140
Carmelites 47, 59, 60 Brahman settlement continues 140
Father Pasquale Baylon 29, 30-2 to form priests not civil servants
inter-caste seminaries 40-4 139
and Ludovico 35 Zaleski on 140
policy of Propaganda Fide towards Jesuits in Madurai
11 Abbe Luquet's criticism of 10, 124
policy of Vicars Apostolic towards and Missions Etrangeres 113, 116,
11 123
and Prendergast 27 and social distance 114-5, 121-3
and Saverio 30-2 Jesuits in Tamil Nadu
seen as ignorant 84 attitudes to 'high' caste 111, 112,
seen as immoral 81-82 113-5
and Stabellini 29, 30, 31, 32 attitudes to 'low' caste 111, 114
training of 12 cultural values of 112
Indian priests and Irish missionaries early history (see also Roberto
and disregard for caste claims 108 Nobili) 7-8, 111
Irish concern for English and and native priests 125
Eurasians 108 and Propaganda Fide 125
Irish Catholics (see Lay Catholics) return to Madurai, 1837112
172
INDEX
rivalry with Padroado 113, 115, Luquet, Abbe 10

117, 120, 121-3, 126, 129 and caste 10
Irish attitude praised by 10
Kandy 12, 141, 142 Jesuit view criticised by 3
Kerala 23
Carmelites 42 Mailapur, Bishops of (padroado) 80,
conflict among Catholics 32, 39, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89
40 Capuchins under control of 90,
socio-economic change in 26, 44 93
Mailapur, Diocese of 132, 133, 135
Lay Catholics Martin, Father Alexandre 115-7
criticise Fortini 65 and headman 118-20
form pressure group 64-5 Missions Etrangeres 3, 80
and IndianlItalian priests 65-6, 70, and caste 8, 9, 124-5
71,76 and Jesuits 12, 113, 117
and Michael Antony 65,66-7 and seminary for Indian priests 12,
Lay Catholics in Madras 79-80 124-5
and lay confraternities 91, 97, 98
Lay participation Neves, Father Michael (Ecclesiastical
attitudes of different classes 68 Governor of Cochin)
defiance of church authorities and Severio 32-4
70-4 New headman, 1889 133
election of priests 66 and car festival 134
encouraged by East India decline in power of 134-6
Company policy 76 Jesuit attitude to 134-6
Hartmann opposes 70, 74 and Jesuit church 133, 135
role of church officials 66-8, 76 Padroado's attitude to 136
role of working class/low castes Nobili, Roberto 7-8, 111, 112
60, 61, 68, 76
Leo XIII, Pope 12, 139 O'Connor, Father Daniel (Bishop of
Low caste assertiveness 129-31 Madras) 99-106
and Fisher priests 129
and Paria education 129, 130 Padroado 2, 3
and Shanar altar servers 130 and Concordat 38
Ludovico, Father (Italian Carmelite) and Fisher caste, Father Pasquale
34 31-32
as Archbishop 35 and Mattancheri 32
and caste 35, 37 and Pope Gregory XVI 3
criticises Bishop Whelan 68, 69 and Propaganda Fide 3-5, 7
and Fisher priests 35 and validity of marriage licenses
and Propaganda Fide 36, 37 4-5
reports on Carmelites in India 37 Padroado and East India Company
resigned 38 effects of schism 59-61
in Rome 36-8 and judicial power of magistrates
as Saverio's Assistant Bishop 35 58
sexual accusations against 35, 36 and subordination to magistrates
supported by Puccinelli 36-7 56
Ludovico and Hartmann Padroado and Indian priests
called to Rome 70 strength in Bombay 75-6
173
Padroado in Madras 79, 80 and recruitment of Indian priests

and Goanese priests 94 11
and Indian priests 81-2, 84 Propaganda Fide and Capuchins
Padroado and Propaganda Fide accepts authority of Bishop of
authority restored 48 Mailapur 88, 90
authority shared 51 Propaganda Fide and Carmelites
Papal brief, Multa Praeclare 4, 32, policy of Indian priests 69-70
124 strength in Bombay 75
Parava headman 112, 117, 119, Propaganda Fide and Caste 111
120-3 on Fisher priests 125
Paravas on Indian priests 123, 125
and love of liturgy 125, 128 Propaganda Fide and Irish
and appeal for ordinands 129 missionaries 109
Jesuit views on 128, 129 Propaganda Fide and Padro ado
Paria students 141 cooperation with 135, 136, 138
Parias 5, 114, 116, 119, 129, 130, and financial accountability of
131, 133, 137 parish priests 48
Parias in Madras 79 and Indian priests 47
PariaslDalits 142, 143 reverts to Padroado 48
Pinto, Antonio de Gloria (Indian rivalries between 133, 134
priest in Bombay) shares with Padroado 51
complains to Bombay Government Protestant missionaries 3, 14, 99
49 Puccinelli, Father Lorenzo, S. J.
complains to Propaganda Fide 47 and St Fidelis 126-7, 128
criticisms of Bombay Carmelites supported Ludovico 36-7
by 47
Vicar-General appointed by Raj, Father Antony vii, 142
Padroado 52 Roothaan, Father General Uesuit
Pius IX, Pope 69 Superior in Rome)
Pondichery on absolution 123
Capuchins in 82 on Jesuit oath on Caste 123, 124
and French Revolution 80, 83 on unwise austerities 114
Propaganda Fide in 79, 80, 81, 82,
83, 84, 85, 108 St Thomas Christians
Portuguese Missionaries and caste 7
and Propaganda Fide 1-2 Save rio, Father Francesco (Italian
Prendergast, Father Miles (Irish Carmelite Bishop, then
Carmelite, Bishop in Kerala) Archbishop)
25-6 appointed Archbishop 32
and Fisher caste 26, 27 appointed Bishop 30
leaves Kerala for Bombay 29 and Father Neves 32-4
sexual accusations against 27-9 on Fisher caste 32
supported by Stabellini 27, 28 opposed Fisher ordinands 31
Propaganda Fide 1,2 opposed Padroado transfers 31-5
and caste 8-12 refused Papal brief 25
and Ferreira 40, 41, 45 stipend from East India Company
and Fisher caste 30, 31 17
and Ludovico 36-38 ShanarslNadars 6, 111, 115, 117,
and Padroado 2, 4, 6, 7 119, 130, 138
174
INDEX
Socio-economic change 7,119, 131, Vellalas 5,111-12,115,116,119

133, 135-6, 138 as altar servers 112
Jesuits' reaction to 136, 138 Vicars Apostolic 2
Father Guchen's views 130, 131 and caste 11
Stabellini, Father Maurelio (Assistant and 1st Vatican Council 11
Bishop to Alcantara) 27-30 and Indian priests 11-12
criticised by Saverio 29, 30 and validity of Padroado marriage
and Fisher caste 30 licenses 4-5
resigns 30
succeeds Prendergast 29 Whelan, Bishop William (former
supports Prendergast 27-8 Carmelite, Vice-Provincial) 62
Strickland, Father William, S. J. 4 attends dying soldiers 63
Sudras 5-6, 109, 111 and Carmelites 69
seen as high caste 9 and Indian priests 71
Syrian Church of South India (see also Italian criticisms of 69, 70
St Thomas Christians) 1, 2, 7 and lay participation 67-8
and Michael Antony 66-7
Torres, Archbishop Jose Maria Silva Wilson, Bishop 7
64 and caste 7
gains support for Padro ado
Transfers of jurisdiction Xavier, St Francis 26,111,140
after partial concordat 129, 131, 132
from Padroado to Propaganda Zaleski, Archbishop Ladislao
Fide 54, 57 Apostolic delegate 43
from Propaganda Fide to and Fisher caste 44
Padroado 57-74, 122, 123 and Ferreira 43, 44, 45-6
use of law courts for 128 and high-caste students 44
Tuticorin and new general seminary 12
as headman's capital 117-20, 133
175

Ballhatchet 1998 Caste, Class and Catholicism in India 1789-1914

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ballhatchet 1998 Caste, Class and Catholicism in India 1789-1914

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASTE, CLASS AND CATHOLICISM

LONDON STUDIES ON SOUTH ASIA

1. Caste and Christianity

Published 2013 by Routledge

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 1998 Kenneth Ballhatchet

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or

I The Vatican and the East Indian Company 1

Kenneth Ballhatchet was a notable Indian historian whom I was

This book began as part of an enquiry into European racial attitudes.

Acta CP Acta Congregationis Particularis super rebus

Board of Control English Government Committee with

Pie'tro d' Alcantara

MADRAS Detail Tamil N adu, and

The Vatican and the East India

This book is concerned with the attitudes of European missionaries

South India, and as a result of their efforts the majority of Syrian

The Indian missions suffered during the Revolutionary and

In 1838 a Papal Brief suspended the padroado dioceses of Cochin

details of the concordat, replied to enquirers that he had been granted

had no religious implications was eventually accepted and his

synonymous with hostility to religion. One must at all costs avoid

The East India Company

The East India Company itself was anomalous - a commercial

spite of their local priests' opposition - submitted for the local

There were other reasons for welcoming Catholic mIssIOnaries.

Bombay government for a loan. Their request was specific and

The Company also provided financial support for the Roman

'that very respectable man Mr Dubois'. Dubois suggested 300 rupees

Government'. To the disappointment of some Catholics in India

'impropriety' of such terms. 27 On another occasion it transpired that

the small stipends it is contemplated to withdraw from the ill-paid

Carmelites, Caste, Sex and Conflict in

There was much conflict among Catholics in nineteenth-century

Propaganda Fide quickly sent a curt rebuke to Bishop Raimondo, and

that he promised him the next Bishopric in Ireland.13 On his way to

had intercourse with women on four specific days. But on examina-

short, someone in Bombay or Kerala had heard his confession. Was it

was Nicola's warning that high-caste priests might go over to

Alleppey. Some Fisher caste people there wanted to transfer

work of Stabellini. So he wrote a bitter letter complaining that if

For the padroado:

The figures showed that the low castes overwhelmingly preferred

Church Property'. He recommended that the church should be

Saverio began to plead for a coadjutor Bishop to help him, and to

malicious people of Kerala were saying wicked things about him.

Indian priest whom Ludovico had dismissed from his office of

Either way, it seemed, Bernardino desperately wanted his post. As

Apostolic Delegate that the instructions must be regarded as out of

Madura, thought it would be very unsettling if the low castes were

provoked complaints from high-caste students and some discussion

to leave Puttampalli contradicted his own assurance that they could

always tried before pagan or Protestant judges who decided against

Mass was sung. But controversy continued. Father Candido com-

proposed an elaborate scheme at the end of which Ferreira would be

Carmelites and Social Conflict in

But the government's request met an unsympathetic response. The

Portuguese government had ordered members of religious orders

Miguel de Lima e Souza was quick to express tactful approval of

But these were the ambitions of an elite. Working-class ideas were

awaited developments. Nothing happened, and two days later they

The Governor-in-Council resolved lamely that as the parishioners

with the wishes of parishioners. 52 So far so good. But the Archbishop

There was another conflict with similar social alignments in the