34
The 1902 Lease does record a number of apparently very poor households, as for instance Ng Fuk and Ng Ki-san, who held between them a mere 0.05 acre of arable land, Ng Shing-po who held just 0.04 acres, plus a further 0.08 held jointly with Ng Loi, Ng Tso-kwai who held 0.04 acre, Ng Ying-shan who held 0.06 acre, Li Yung-wun who held 0.04 acre, and Ng Ping-fuk with 0.04 acres. Ng Chan Shi, Ng A Hing, Ng Lam-hing jointly with Ng Tso-hing, and Ng Tsun-ming are all recorded as owning only houses, with no agricultural land, although there can be no question that these were genuinely resident villagers in every respect. These areas of agricultural land are far too low to support a household. In these instances, however, we are probably seeing men whose fathers were still alive, and where the bulk of the family land was recorded under the father's name. In such circumstances, where an adult son had himself bought a piece of land with money he had saved from his own labour, then this small piece of land was often regarded as the son's alone, and would have been so recorded. This cannot be proved at Nga Tsin Wai, since the Tsuk Po in most cases records the posthumous Tong names rather than the names recorded in the Lease, but it is extremely likely for Li Kam-tak, for instance. This man held 0.1 acres, of which 0.06 acres were held jointly with two others - but Kam-tak was an important Ng clan elder in 1902, the trustee of the moderately significant Ting Fuk Tso, with its holdings of a house in Sha Po and 0.37 acres. Similarly, Ng Loi, with his 0.08 acres, was nonetheless a significant elder, the trustee of two trusts, including the important Chiu Pak Tso. Ng Ping-fuk, too, may have had only 0.04 acres of agricultural land, but he also owned two very large houses outside the village, as large between them as six standard houses, and was one of the trustees of the small King Tai Tso.
Another reason for these tiny estates may have been that families were unsure whether it would later on prove to be advantageous to have a name entered on the Lease (as was definitely the case with the Ch'ing Imperial Land Registers), and so some families allowed adult sons to enter themselves as the owner of some small plot in case this later proved of value. In none of these cases should the small estates recorded be taken as the household's sole economic resource. Few households in Nga Tsin Wai (other than the remnant Chans, and the Yungs) seem to have held less than 0.4 acres of arable land.
In many cases, households would have extended their land holdings
34
The 1902 Lease does record a number of apparently very poor households, as for instance Ng Fuk and Ng Ki-san, who held between them a mere 0.05 acre of arable land, Ng Shing-po who held just 0.04 acres, plus a further 0.08 held jointly with Ng Loi, Ng Tso-kwai who held 0.04 acre, Ng Ying-shan who held 0.06 acre, Li Yung-wun who held 0.04 acre, and Ng Ping-fuk with 0.04 acres. Ng Chan Shi, Ng A Hing, Ng Lam-hing jointly with Ng Tso-hing, and Ng Tsun-ming are all recorded as owning only houses, with no agricultural land, although there can be no question that these were genuinely resident villagers in every respect. These areas of agricultural land are far too low to sup- port a household. In these instances, however, we are probably seeing men whose fathers were still alive, and where the bulk of the family land was recorded under the father's name. In such circumstances, where an adult son had himself bought a piece of land with money he had saved from his own labour, then this small piece of land was often regarded as the son's alone, and would have been so recorded. This cannot be proved at Nga Tsin Wai, since the Tsuk Po in most cases records the posthumous Tong names rather than the names recorded in the Lease, but it is extremely likely for Li Kam-tak, for instance. This man held 0.1 acres, of which 0.06 acres were held jointly with two others - but Kam-tak was an important Ng clan elder in 1902, the trustee of the moderately significant Ting Fuk Tso, with its holdings of a house in Sha Po and 0.37 acres. Similarly, Ng Loi, with his 0.08 acres, was nonetheless a significant elder, the trustee of two trusts, including the important Chiu Pak Tso. Ng Ping-fuk, too, may have had only 0.04 acres of agricultural land, but he also owned two very large houses outside the village, as large between them as six standard houses, and was one of the trustees of the small King Tai Tso.
Another reason for these tiny estates may have been that families were unsure whether it would later on prove to be advantageous to have a name entered on the Lease (as was definitely the case with the Ch'ing Imperial Land Registers), and so some families allowed adult sons to enter themselves as the owner of some small plot in case this later proved of value. In none of these cases should the small estates recorded be taken as the household's sole economic resource. Few households in Nga Tsin Wai (other than the remnant Chans, and the Yungs) seem to have held less than 0.4 acres of arable land.
In
many cases, households would have extended their land holdings
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.