TWO ESSAYS ON THE CH'ING ECONOMY OF HSIN-AN
63
land itself, which has been left entirely under the control of the tenants. These tenants have changed from time to time; sub-leased the land; sold the right of cultivation or mortgaged that right, without consulting the landowners, who were quite satisfied so long as the rent was regularly paid. It has often happened that some crafty tenant has asked his landlord to reduce his rent, giving as an excuse that it was impossible to make the land pay unless the rent were reduced, and that if the reduction were not agreed to the tenant must give up the land. The landlord, who has inherited the land without knowing any particulars concerning it, is practically at the mercy of his tenant, and is constrained to comply since it is impossible for him to take over possession of the land which in many cases is far removed from his own village or district. Besides, tenants generally form a "ring," agreeing among themselves that no other person shall be allowed to take over cultivation from the peasant in occupation. It is easy to see how such farming rings are able to boycott the landlords. In fact, it is not an unusual proceeding for tenants, taking advantage of the ignorance of their landlords, to make an absolute sale of a part of the land, the part retained being sufficient to pay the rent.29
At the time of the cession of Hong Kong Island, the tenant economy of Hsin-An was in equilibrium. The landlords enjoyed a steady income based on the collection of rent; rent was typically paid in kind, thereby enabling the landlords to capitalize on the rising price of rice.30 The tenants, on the other hand, were free to extend the surface area under cultivation without being liable to extra rent payments. (It must be remembered, of course, that landlords were similarly exempt from extra tax payments on the extended surface area.) When the British occupied Hong Kong Island, they found slightly less than 1500 mow under cultivation, of which 1000 were devoted to paddy cultivation. The Tangs, in petitions to various officials, were able to show claim to slightly more than 1100 mow from which they collected rent-values.31 A more extreme example is offered by the Tsing Yi estate. The Tangs laid claim to the whole island and the surrounding fisheries. In evidence to the Land Court, they cited rent payments of 40 piculs (A) on 36 mow leased to perpetual tenants. The crown rent, levied by the British, would have amounted to $7.50. The sur-
TWO ESSAYS ON THE CH'ING ECONOMY OF HSIN-AN
63
land itself, which has been left entirely under the control of the tenants. These tenants have changed from time to time; sub- leased the land; sold the right of cultivation or mortgaged that right, without consulting the landowners, who were quite satis- fied so long as the rent was regularly paid. It has often happened that some crafty tenant has asked his landlord to reduce his rent, giving as an excuse that it was impossible to make the land pay unless the rent were reduced, and that if the reduction were not agree to the tenant must give up the land. The landlord, who has inherited the land without knowing any particulars concern- ing it, is practically at the mercy of his tenant, and is constrained to comply since it is impossible for him to take over possession of the land which in many cases is far removed from his own village or district. Besides, tenants generally form a "ring," agreeing among themselves that no other person shall be allowed to take over cultivation from the peasant in occupation. It is easy to see how such farming rings are able to boycott the landlords. In fact, it is not an unusual proceeding for tenants, taking advantage of the ignorance of their landlords, to make an absolute sale of a part of the land, the part retained being sufficient to pay the rent.29
At the time of the cession of Hong Kong Island, the tenant economy of Hsin-An was in equilibrium. The landlords enjoyed a steady income based on the collection of rent; rent was typically paid in kind, thereby enabling the landlords to capitalize on the rising price of rice,30 The tenants, on the other hand, were free to extend the surface area under cultivation without being liable to extra rent payments. (It must be remembered, of course, that landlords were similarly exempt from extra tax payments on the extended surface area.) When the British occupied Hong Kong Island, they found slightly less than 1500 mow under cultivation, of which 1000 were devoted to paddi cultivation. The Tangs. in petitions to various officials, were able to show claim to slightly more than 1100 mow from which they collected rent-values.31 A more extreme example is offered by the Tsing Yi estate. The Tangs laid claim to the whole island and the surrounding fisheries. In evidence to the Land Court, they cited rent payments of 40 piculs (A) on 36 mow leased to perpetual tenants. The crown rent, levied by the British, would have amounted to $7.50. The sur-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.