|
TO Dr Legge the Tai-ping
Rebellion presented strange complications. For the 'Shield King' who, it is
said, was for a time second in command, and who certainly became a prominent
leader in the rebellion, had been for some years his friend. And not only
this, but a friend for whom Dr Legge felt special affection and a warmth of
admiration such as he gave to hardly any other Chinaman.
It was about the year 1854
that a Swedish missionary brought to Hong Kong a man named Hung Jin. 'He is
a cousin' he told Dr Legge, 'of the Tai-ping king.' The man himself said
that he had been separated from his cousin when the latter raised the
standard of rebellion. Wishing to join him, he gathered a small band of
followers and attempted to march through Kwang Hsi, but was intercepted by a
band of Imperialist soldiers and sustained a defeat. Most of his followers
were cut to pieces, but he fought his way through and then found himself
near a German missionary settlement at which he asked for shelter. There
were, however, no means of sheltering him at the German station: he was sure
there to fall into the hands of the Imperialists sooner or later, and so
they sent him to Hong Kong and begged Dr Legge to give him some employment.
Dr Legge found work for him
in teaching. There seems to have been something peculiarly attractive in his
disposition, for very soon he was greatly liked by all, both English and
Chinese. He grew very much in knowledge of the Scriptures, and became a
wonderful helper in all that was good in the community, so much so that Mr
Chalmers said one day, when Dr Legge remarked that a new attendant at the
mission services sought constantly Hung Jin's company, 'Ah, then he's sure
to be getting good.'
It soon became known in Hong
Kong that he was a cousin of the Tai-ping king, and scores came to him and
asked him to lead them into the interior to join the king at Nanking. Dr
Legge advised him to have nothing to do with the rebels, and said he should
be thankful that he had escaped from his entanglement, for, from the first,
Dr Legge had expressed his distrust and disapprobation of certain obnoxious
tenets held by the Tai-ping leader. But the character of Hung Jin himself Dr
Legge held in high esteem.
When the Doctor was obliged
to go to England for eighteen months, he laid strict injunctions on Hung Jin
to remain in Hong Kong and not to join the rebel forces. Hung Jin was led
astray, however, disguised himself as a pedlar, and with a pack of
stationery succeeded in getting to Nanking, where the king acknowledged him
as his cousin and made him one of his chiefs, with the title of Kanwang, the
Shield King.
Before he left Hong Kong,
however, he had brought his family and his brother to the Mission House,
where his brother, named Sye-po, became chief servant in Dr Legge's family,
and behaved well. Allusions to Sye-po, who was a good and trusted servant,
are found in various letters. It is worthy of note that when Hung Jin left
Hong Kong, there were two principal objects which he said he would keep
before him if he should succeed in reaching Nanking.
The first was the correction
of religious errors; and the second, the prosecution of a line conciliatory
to foreigners. Installed at Nanking, he conducted his affairs with great
success, had interviews with many foreigners, and was highly spoken of by
them. The first proclamation from him, and a long memorial 'To the Celestial
King/ were worthy of all praise. He wrote to Dr Legge frequently, and sent
him copies of the different publications which he issued. The Tai-pings held
Nanking for about nine years; they ruled the city and a considerable portion
of the province besides, and they had an army of some tens of thousands of
men.
Among other things which the
Shield King did was to write out in large characters the Ten Commandments
and portions of the Sermon on the Mount, and put them up, on and around the
principal gates of Nanking, that all might know the laws of the heavenly
kingdom.
Writing in reference to this
matter to the Religious Tract Society, Dr Legge gives expression to his
views as affecting the Mission enterprise, and the desire to give China the
Truth.
In the great work, says the
Religious Tract Society's Report of 1854, which is opening to the Society
and kindred institutions, it is encouraging to find that the leader of the
insurgent troops is promoting widely the issue of portions of the Scriptures
and many religious tracts. It is reported that he keeps 400 printers
employed, principally in the production of copies of the Scriptures. He also
sends forth numerous tracts, and superintends the printing operations.
Although the tracts contain some things of a doubtful character, yet they
clearly abjure idolatry—recognise the duty to serve the living and true
God—they make known Jesus Christ as the only and all-sufficient Saviour—lead
the people to rejoice in the prospect of the future life which Christianity
discloses to them, and the duty of possessing and reading the Sacred
Scriptures.
In reference to these
statements, Dr Legge writes:—
'If the insurgents held only
these principles, we could not refuse to them a large measure of our
admiration. The starting up on a sudden of hundreds of thousands of men and
women, professing these views in China—stereotyped and benumbed China— is a
phenomenon in which I dare not but magnify the power of God.'
The Report continues: Another
important event has also been connected with the present state of China. The
missionaries have long conscientiously differed as to the proper Chinese
term to be employed for 'God' in their Christian publications. This
difference of opinion has impeded to a considerable extent the circulation
of the Scriptures and tracts. On this subject the Bishop of Victoria, in a
recent charge delivered to his clergy remarks: 'The unexpected religious
movement in the interior of China has occurred to settle this question, and
to take it virtually out of our hands. In the prayers offered up daily
throughout the army and camp of Tai-ping-wang, and addressed to the one true
God our heavenly Father, through the merits of the one Redeemer, for the
gift of the one sanctifying Spirit— is a providential intimation which I
feel bound to acknowledge in favour of the term "Shang-te." Thus a great
difficulty has been removed, and henceforth the term "Shang-te" will be
universally employed for "God" in all the works issued by the Christian
missionaries of China.'
One day, Sye-po, the Shield
King's brother, came to Dr Legge, saying that the Shield King had sent him a
bag containing a thousand dollars, with directions to give a hundred dollars
each to certain friends in Hong Kong, those friends being Dr Legge himself,
Mr Chalmers, two German missionaries and some Chinese Christians. Dr Legge
asked where the Shield King got the money. 'He is the king,* replied Sye-po,
'and can get what money he likes.* Dr Legge replied, 'You call him the king;
I call him a rebel. If the Tai-ping rebellion succeeds in overturning the
Chinese government, I will recognise him as a king, but now I can only
recognise him as a rebel, and I doubt whether the thousand dollars have been
honestly procured. He used to be happy here with ten dollars a month ; write
to him and say that I cannot receive the bag of one hundred dollars.' 'But
he will be angry,' said the brother. 'I cannot help that,' replied Dr Legge,
'tell him I appreciate his kind intentions, and must wait for the issue of
the rebellion.'
This offer became known among
the Chinese, and when, a few years after, Dr Legge found himself at the city
of Shaou-king, a number of Chinamen on learning his name, came and saluted
him and said 'Though we have never seen you before, you are well known in
many parts of Canton province as the ' righteous man.' ' Why do you call me
so ?' asked Dr Legge. ' Because you refused the money sent you by the Shield
King.'
Sye-po, who grew most anxious
to join his brother, left Dr Legge's service and found his way to Nanking.
Dr Legge wrote asking him to return, but he replied that he could not,
because it was the time for using men. Once Dr Legge heard of him through
Judge Adams, who, on one occasion, on leaving Nanking, was hailed by a
Tai-ping official, who was Sye-po. Passages in the Shanghai papers were read
by Dr Legge with pleasure, being always in praise of his old friend the
Shield King.
At last came the news of the
capture of Nanking by the Imperialists. The leader of the rebellion killed
himself, and the Shield King, if he had thought only of his own safety,
might have escaped. But his sense of right would not let him leave the young
prince. He therefore took the lad under his protection and tried to make his
escape with him. They were both captured. Hung Jin was carried to Peking,
put on his trial, and there beheaded. Thus the whole rebellion collapsed.
In 1862 a letter by Dr Legge
was published in England, relative to the hostilities directed by the
British and French forces under General Gordon against the Tai-ping
insurgents. In former years the avowed policy of the British government was
that of neutrality. But the threatened attack of the Tai-pings on Shanghai
and other cities secured by treaty for purposes of British commerce,
provoked a departure from that neutrality.
Extracts from Dr Legge's
letter reveal his opinion both of the Tai-pings and of the Manchu Government
which they wished to overthrow, an opinion formed after nearly twenty years1
residence in China.
'I do not take this matter in
hand as an apologist for the religious views and political course of the
Tai-pings. It is assumed by many that missionaries have been and still are
their advocates, in spite of the plain witness of undeniable and melancholy
facts. The utmost that can be alleged against missionaries is, that when the
rebel movement first came prominently before the world, in 1853, after the
capture of Nan-king, many of them hailed the religious sentiments expressed
in the tracts and manifestoes of their leaders. But when, in the course of
time, the promise connected with the movement began to wither, their regret
was corresponding, and as they had opportunity they remonstrated with the
Tai-pings themselves, nor did they hide anything which they knew from the
public. As I carefully send my thoughts back over the last nine years, I can
single out from amongst the missionary body in China, but one solitary
eccentric exception to the statement just given. In a letter from my own pen
in July 1854, I wrote—Two points seem to be established; first, that the
religion of the insurgents is running into a wild and blasphemous
fanaticism; and second, that they have assumed an attitude of determined
hostility to foreigners. From the first I professed my disbelief in the
revelations to which Hung Seu-tseun, their chief, laid claim.
'My old friend Hung Jin, the
Shield King, was prepared to counsel them wisely as to the cultivation of
friendly relationship with foreigners. Had we been willing to enter into
negotiations with them in 1860 or 1861, we should have found that their
calling us "foreign brethren" had a real good substantial meaning in it.
Still the Shield King was not equal to the difficulties of his position.
'But as regards our entering
into hostilities with the Tai-pings—what casus belli have they given us?
Possibly there may be a sufficient one stated in some despatch that the
Government at home received, and which has been laid before Parliament. They
profess many absurd and fanatical dogmas; their views as to theology are
miserably degrading; their warfare against the Imperialists leads to
indescribable misery among the people. All these things are true; but I fail
to discover in them anything like a casus belli against ourselves. Have the
rebels outraged British property, and then refused to give satisfaction?
Have they entered into engagements with us and then wilfully and knowingly
violated them? Did they threaten to stop our trade, or have they instituted
any measures for that purpose? I have not heard any of the things involved
in these questions alleged against the Tai-pings. I contend that after
holding the second city of the Empire for nine years and coming forth
victorious from hundreds of conflicts with the Imperial forces, they ought
to have been respected by us as belligerents. It is vehemently asserted that
the foreign settlement would not have been safe with Shanghai in the hands
of the rebels. Such an assertion can only be met by another equally vehement
on the opposite side. But I fully agree with many who hold that if we had
clearly professed our neutrality and fully explained our views to the
rebels, they would have kept aloof from every place where foreigners were
located by treaty right
'But it avails not to deplore
the fact that we have taken the field against the Tai-pings; it is a fact.
We have defeated them in every engagement, losing also valuable lives on our
own side. But we were obliged to concentrate our troops in and around
Shanghai We handed over our conquests to the Imperialists, and when we had
done so and retired, down came the Tai-pings and made short work of the
"braves." The poor people are now in harder case than they were before. They
have been driven by thousands into Shanghai. There they are, nearly
houseless and half-fed. Cholera finds them an easy prey. More than 900 died
last month within three days.
'These, it may be said, are
unavoidable miseries of war: The war is a fact and it must be prosecuted.
But I ask, in whose interest are we to put down the rebellion? Now, I
protest against our putting down the rebellion on behalf of the Imperial
Government on two grounds. The first is the ground of its cruelty. I have
read harrowing accounts of the devastations of the rebels. The accounts are
no doubt true. But I have seen also the ways of the Imperial braves and kept
company with them for hours together. Their march over the country was like
the progress of locusts. Their thirst for blood was quenchless; their
outrages on the young and old were indescribable. But the Question is not
about the masses but about the officers of government. And to know what will
be the consequence if we put down the rebels on behalf of the Imperial
Government, we have only to think of Yeh and his doings in Canton, when in
about twelve months he beheaded 70,000.
'The second ground on which I
object to the putting down of the rebellion on behalf of the Imperial
Government, is the utter inefficiency of that government. Apart from rebel
districts the people everywhere set it at defiance. It is unable to fulfil
its treaty engagements. Its soldiers are often uncivil and rude; the gentry
are everywhere sullen and insolent; the mob is often riotous and violent;
but against soldiers, gentry and the mob, the authorities can hardly give
any protection. We may say we shall insist on securities from the Chinese
Government that it will fulfil its treaty stipulations, and will secure to
us greater privileges. This is to me a vain dream.
The Israelites had certainly
an easier task to make bricks without straw than we have in undertaking to
pacify China in harmony with the Manchu Government The Manchus are not
worthy that we should interfere in their behalf. And whereas it is affirmed
that we interfere on behalf of our own commerce, it has not been shown that
the rebels have ever tried to check our commerce. Our green tea and our silk
have come for eighteen months from districts in their hands.
'I think that our attempt to
bolster up the Manchu dynasty will be found a very thankless and uncertain
undertaking. For hundreds of years since the Christian era there have been
in China anarchy and civil strife. The nation has groaned in pain for
centuries. Information on the state of things in China is sadly needed at
home. |
