26
EDGAR WICKBERG
rights. The two most common were: the right to collect revenue from the land, and the right to use the land. A third right, that of permanent sublease tenancy, might also be established and recognized. The first and second of these rights, the ones most commonly found, were called "ownership" rights, and it was customary to speak of one "owner's" owning the "topsoil" and the other "owner's" possessing the "bottom" soil. Although these terms, used in the New Territories as elsewhere, are colourful and memorable, they are somewhat misleading to those of us who today think of mineral rights, air space, and so on. I prefer to think of these as simply two different rights in land: one a revenue right, the other a right of agricultural cultivation. In most places where this separation of land rights was found, each of the two rights in question was perpetual, could be inherited, and could be freely mortgaged or sold. Thus, the owner of the revenue right might not even know the location of the land from which he drew revenue; he had inherited or purchased a right to income from it, which he, in turn, could freely dispose of. In that sense, the revenue right became, by the late Ch'ing period, more a right to income from a given piece of land than a partial "ownership" of that land. The only responsibility he had towards the land was to pay the tax, which, being lower in amount than the revenue he received, allowed him a net profit. The holder of the cultivation right, on the other hand, was closer to what we would consider an "owner". He was free to farm the land as he wished, and he might sublet it if he chose. His only responsibility was to pay the revenue charge to the person who held the right to collect it. Since that charge was usually much less in amount than what he might gain from farming the land himself or by collecting rent from a tenant, he, too, made a profit. We tend to think of this person as an "owner" because he might very well have farmed the land himself, and, even if he did not, he might reside close by and keep track, thereby, of the condition of the land. Yet there were holders of the cultivation right who did not live near the land in question, and who knew little of its actual condition. In such cases, the tenant who actually held a lease from them might come, in time, to be recognized as having a permanent right to be a tenant on that land. Once that happened, such a tenant might be able to sell his right to be tenant, or mortgage it. He might also, if the land in question were sufficiently sizeable and fertile, sublet part or all of it to someone else. In this way, several different rights in a given piece of land were established, and, thereby, a large and fertile piece of land might support a large number of people, each with a right to some aspect of it. In this way,
26
EDGAR WICKBERG
rights. The two most common were: the right to collect revenue from the land, and the right to use the land. A third right, that of permanent sublease tenancy, might also be established and recognized. The first and second of these rights, the ones most commonly found, were called "ownership" rights, and it was customary to speak of one "owner's" owning the "topsoil" and the other "owner's" possessing the "bottom" soil. Although these terms, used in the New Territories as elsewhere, are colourful and memorable, they are somewhat mis- leading to those of us who today think of mineral rights, air space, and so on. I prefer to think of these as simply two different rights in land one a revenue right, the other a right of agricultural cultivation. In most places where this separation of land rights was found, each of the two rights in question was perpetual, could be inherited, and could be freely mortgaged or sold. Thus, the owner of the revenue right might not even know the location of the land from which he drew revenue; he had inherited or purchased a right to income from it, which he, in turn, could freely dispose of. In that sense, the revenue right became, by the late Ch'ing period, more a right to income from a given piece of land than a partial "ownership" of that land. The only responsibility he had towards the land was to pay the tax, which, being lower in amount than the revenue he received, allowed him a net profit. The holder of the cultivation right, on the other hand, was closer to what we would consider an "owner". He was free to farm the land as he wished, and he might sublet it if he chose. His only responsibility was to pay the revenue charge to the person who held the right to collect it. Since that charge was usually much less in amount than what he might gain from farming the land himself or by collecting rent from a tenant, he, too, made a profit. We tend to think of this person as an "owner" because he might very well have farmed the land himself, and, even if he did not, he might reside close by and keep track, thereby, of the condition of the land. Yet there were holders of the cultivation right who did not live near the land in question, and who knew little of its actual condition. In such cases, the tenant who actually held a lease from them might come, in time, to be recognized as having a permanent right to be a tenant on that land. Once that happened, such a tenant might be able to sell his right to be tenant, or mortgage it. He might also, if the land in question were sufficiently sizeable and fertile, sublet part or all of it to someone else. In this way, several different rights in a given piece of land were established, and, thereby, a large and fertile piece of land might support a large number of people, each with a right to some aspect of it. In this way,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.