ANOTHER LOOK AT LAND AND LINEAGE IN THE N T, c 1900
—
27
all
too, multiple rights in land became negotiable. Thus, by the end of the Ch'ing period, in the places where this system existed, the revenue right, the cultivation right, and sometimes the tenancy right could be bought and sold, or mortgaged (as well as inherited), and, since mortgage could be assigned, might be transferred yet another step or two. The economic and social significance of these developments in late imperial China awaits full investigation.
Under what circumstances did such a system come into being? I believe I have identified five kinds of circumstances. There may be many more. In one case, where a frontier is to be opened or devastated lands reclaimed, patents may be given to an entrepreneur to make the necessary arrangements. He may then recruit persons to do the work, giving them a perpetual lease to cultivate the land subject only to their paying him an annual rent on a perpetual basis. In this way, both entrepreneurship (which sometimes included partial financing of reclamation) and the actual labour of opening the land, are given their rewards. Such was the most common origin of the multi-tiered tenure system in Ch'ing Taiwan; but as far as I know these circumstances never applied to the New Territories of Hong Kong.
In a second case, local power sometimes extending beyond the purely local to become influence in higher places was the basis of such an arrangement. In this case, clans or individuals who arrived early in a given region, claimed the best lands for themselves, and, in time, perhaps produced degree holders who exercised influence, or through armed forces asserted their local power, would then claim what amounted to "protection money" from other landowners in their region. Again, the result was the same: a right to part of the produce of the land. But in this case, there seems to have been little sense of responsibility for paying the tax and, indeed, the arrangement, based on power rather than documented land rights, might not have been recognized by the Chinese government if ever brought to notice. We are most familiar with this form of revenue claim from reports of the activities of the Tangs of Kam Tin just prior to the British assumption of sovereignty over the New Territories.
In a third case, on a frontier where there were non-Chinese aboriginal peoples, treaties might be made with the latter in which Chinese settlement and land rights were allowed subject to the perpetual payment of fees to the aboriginal claimants. In Taiwan, where this situation existed, such a fee was called "barbarian" rent, or "barbarian" revenue (fan ta-tsu).
ANOTHER LOOK AT LAND AND LINEAGE IN THE N T, c 1900
—
27
all
too, multiple rights in land became negotiable. Thus, by the end of the Ch'ing period, in the places where this system existed, the revenue right, the cultivation right, and sometimes the tenancy right could be bought and sold, or mortgaged (as well as inherited), and, since mortgage could be assigned, might be transferred yet another step or two. The economic and social significance of these develop- ments in late imperial China awaits full investigation.
Under what circumstances did such a system come into being? I believe I have identified five kinds of circumstances. There may be many more. In one case, where a frontier is to be opened or devastated lands reclaimed, patents may be given to an entrepreneur to make the necessary arrangements. He may then recruit persons to do the work, giving them a perpetual lease to cultivate the land subject only to their paying him an annual rent on a perpetual basis. In this way, both entrepreneurship (which sometimes included partial financing of reclaimation) and the actual labour of opening the land, are given their rewards. Such was the most common origin of the multi-tiered tenure system in Ch'ing Taiwan; but as far as I know these circumstances never applied to the New Territories of Hong Kong.
▬▬
In a second case, local power sometimes extending beyond the purely local to become influence in higher places → was the basis of such an arrangement. In this case, clans or individuals who arrived early in a given region, claimed the best lands for themselves, and, in time, perhaps produced degree holders who exercised influnce, or through armed forces asserted their local power, would then claim what amounted to "protection money" from other landowners in their region. Again, the result was the same: a right to part of the produce of the land. But in this case, there seems to have been little sense of responsibility for paying the tax and, indeed, the arrangement, based on power rather than documented land rights, might not have been recognized by the Chinese government if ever brought to notice. We are most familiar with this form of revenue claim from reports of the activities of the Tangs of Kam Tin just prior to the British assumption of sovereignty over the New Territories.
In a third case, on a frontier where there were non-Chinese abor- iginal peoples, treaties might be made with the latter in which Chinese settlement and land rights were allowed subject to the perpetual pay- . ment of fees to the aboriginal claimants. In Taiwan, where this situation existed, such a fee was called "barbarian" rent, or “barbarian" revenue (fan ta-tsu).
I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.