"Taeping, Tien-kwo, 10th year, 7th moon, 12th day."
With strange, but most probably compulsory inconsistency, after the defence of Shanghae, Mr. Bruce, although previously opposing any intervention or help to the Manchoos in the strong terms already quoted in his despatch to Lord Russell concerning that event, abuses the Ti-pings almost as strongly, as if to justify the outrage he had been guilty of towards them. In one part of the despatch referred to, dated Shanghae, September 4th, 1860, Mr. Bruce, speaking of the Ti-ping advance upon Shanghae, states:—
"They were perfectly, however, aware of our intention to defend the town. It was explained to them in the most unequivocal manner by Mr. Edkins during his late visit to Soo-chow, to whom they seem to have attributed an official character. It probably conduced to the ungracious reception he met with."
Now this passage is entirely contrary to fact, which will be perceived directly on perusing the account given by Mr. Edkins himself. At another part of his defence, Mr. Bruce states:—
"It is certain that even Hung-jin (Kan-wang), from whom, as educated in a missionary school, and therefore better instructed in religious doctrine, and of more liberal views than the Ti-pings in general, the Protestant missionaries expected great things, declined to abandon or postpone the attempt on Shanghae."
This hollow accusation against Hung-jin in particular, and the Ti-pings in general, is as ridiculous as it is so to call the Ti-pings illiberal, because they would not desist from capturing an important city of the enemy, the possession of which was absolutely necessary for their existence.
It is now desirable to notice the following extract from the same despatch. The Mr. Holmes referred to in it visited Nankin about the same time Shanghae was defended, and wrote an account of what took place in such terms as to render it difficult to believe it ever emanated from the pen of a minister of the Gospel, particularly when it is remembered that the stronger the grounds might have been to condemn the religious belief of the Ti-pings, the greater the duty of Mr. Holmes to fulfil his mission and teach them better. Mr. Holmes was sent to China as a missionary and not as a theological critic; neither was he required to teach those who were perfect in the Faith; his services were required by (and had he done his duty would have been given to) people struggling through the clouds of paganism and ignorance, such as he describes the Ti-pings to have been encompassed with. Why, then, did Mr. Holmes make no attempt to succour those who acknowledged the same Saviour, whose Word he professed to teach, who had accepted the Bible in its full integrity, and who, in my presence, have implored missionaries to remain among and teach them those mysteries they were not able to interpret? Why did Mr. Holmes report in such an uncharitable spirit of men freely receiving and professing Christianity, and make not the slightest effort to rectify the faults he so condemned? Mr. Holmes has thus laid himself open to severe censure; but he is not the only missionary to blame. Although vast sums of money are contributed in England, and expensive missions sent to people and countries that will not profess; how is it that no attempt has been made to help the millions at one time constituting the Ti-ping revolution, who not only professed Christianity as their principal object, but who fought, suffered, and died for it.
Mr. Bruce goes on to state:—
"I enclose herewith a very interesting account given by a Mr. Holmes, a Baptist American missionary, of a trip he had made lately to Nankin....
"I beg particularly to call your Lordship's attention to Mr. Holmes's general reflections at the close of his letter....