For the substantial truth of this confession there are a number of good arguments.
1. The imperial authorities were convinced that Hung was a real chief of high authority. This is indicated by the fact that they forwarded him to Peking carefully guarded. They may have thought him superior to Hung Siu-ch'üan, or not, but they were not duped into thinking that he was the only leader or that they had crushed the rebellion in his capture. If they had later discovered that he was actually an officer of lower rank masquerading as one of the chiefs, they would certainly have omitted all reference to his name in the accounts of the rebellion which were written when they had gained more accurate information.[1] Moreover, not long after this, Saishanga was cashiered for incompetence, and it would have been possible for them to make this mistake one of the counts in the indictment if they thought that there had been deception or a mistake.
2. His claim to being a Hunanese was tested on the way down the Siang River. On reaching Changsha they called him up and said that they were arriving at Hengchow, but he recognised the place at once as Changsha.[2]
3. His claim to equality with the Taiping-wang is also strengthened by the universal understanding that there was a man with the title of T'ienteh in the movement from the first. If the title T'ienteh had been borne by Hung himself he would have had no reason later to change it; or if he did change it, no reason for concealment.
4. The title he bore is one that distinguishes him clearly from the five other kings created below the T'ien-
- ↑ A comparison of some of the erroneous information in contemporary Peking Gazettes with the later accounts in the official histories shows that other errors were corrected. This was never changed or dropped out.
- ↑ They took him down the river very rapidly and under heavy escort for fear he would be rescued by some of his party in Hunan.
