To Mr Henry Knolleke
16 Harpur Street
13th February 1850
My Dear Sir,
In compliance with your request, and for the uses you mention, I furnish you with the Chinese documents which were read on Friday last in the Committee.
To make the information in the case complete it should be recorded that after the reading of the two notes from Mr. Jetter to me, I made the verbal explanations showing that though there had been some little misunderstandings between the German Missionaries and Dr. Gutzlaff all this had been rectified, and that the two parties were and are in perfect accordance; and the same was manifest in Mr. Lechler's letter to Dr Steinkopff, and by Mr. Hamberg's to Mr. Brandram. The truth is, the German Missionaries, expecting perhaps to find the Chinese converts more advanced than could well be expected under all the circumstances of the case, made their complaints to Dr. Gutzlaff about them, and just then wrote to Dr. Barch with these feelings and impressions on their mind. On the other hand the Chinese Evangelists complained to Dr. Gutzlaff of the German Missionaries, and he had to mediate between the two parties, all which he seems to have done with wisdom and tenderness of a father towards his disputing and imperfect children.
Another circumstance also entered into this case, which was, that Dr. Gutzlaff urged the importance and even necessity for effective use that the German Brethren should, as I may express it, Chinese themselves by adopting the dress and mode of living of the Chinese, and thus to enter the interior and go through the breadth of the land. The German Missionaries were, (as all European Missionaries still are) at first disinclined to encounter the changes and consequent privations and dangers, and hence their disagreement with Dr. Gutzlaff, and their statements regarding him. Afterwards however they saw the propriety of acting as had been recommended to them and accordingly they now follow the same.
All this I have from Dr. Gutzlaff in reply to the brotherly freedom I had taken in wishing for explanations on the points noticed in the two letters from Mr. Jetter to me as before mentioned.
I might here add, that I believe a good deal of the misunderstanding between Dr. Gutzlaff and the European Missionaries has its foundation on the circumstance that he ever urges the need of the European Missionaries chinesing themselves, whilst they both in theory and in practice dissent from him in this matter. One can easily imagine that results similar to those actually in existence should arise and continue on account of this difference of opinion.
In regard to the lawfulness and facility of adopting the Chinese dress and mode of life and going through the whole of the country, I would observe, that though legally all Foreigners as such are prohibited from visiting any parts of China except the Five Cities open to them, yet on the other hand by the same Foreigners becoming naturalized, all difficulties are removed, and the same parties may then visit every part of the empire.
Again, as to naturalization, all that is required in the case to constitute the same legally is that the individual Foreigner should be adopted by some Chinese family, and this may be obtained with considerable facility.
I think it might be well to insert this letter at the close of the correspondence in question.
I remain,
Yours Very Truly,
James Thomson.