The Middle Kingdom, Volume 1 (of 2) / A Survey of the Geography, Government, Literature, Social Life, Arts, and History of the Chinese Empire and its Inhabitants

Much of the interest appertaining to the country and people here treated of, in the minds of philanthropic and intelligent men, has arisen from the impression they have received of its vast population. A country twice the size of the Chinese empire would present few attractions to the Christian, the merchant, or the ethnologist, if it were no better inhabited than Sahara, or Arizona: a people might possess most admirable institutions, and a matchless form of government, yet these excellencies would lose their interest, did we hear that it is the republic of San Marino or the kingdom of Muscat, where they are found. The population of few countries in the world has been accurately ascertained, and probably that of China is less satisfactory than any European or American state of the present day. It is far easier to take a census among a people who understand its object, and will honestly assist in its execution, than in a despotic, half-civilized country, where the mass of the inhabitants are afraid of contact or intercourse with their rulers; in most of such states, as Abyssinia, Turkey, Persia, etc., there is either no regular enumeration at all, or merely a general estimate for the purposes of revenue or conscription.

The subject of the population of China has engaged the attention of the monarchs of the present dynasty, and their censuses have been the best sources of information in making up an intelligent opinion upon the matter. Whatever may be our views of the actual population, it is plain that these censuses, with all their discrepancies and inaccuracies, are the only reliable sources of information. The conflicting opinions and conclusions of foreign writers neither give any additional weight to them, nor detract at all from their credibility. As the question stands at present, they can be doubted, but cannot be denied; it is impossible to prove them, while there are many grounds for believing them; the enormous total which they exhibit can be declared to be improbable, but not shown to be impossible.

No one who has been in China can hesitate to acknowledge that there are some strong grounds for giving credit to them, but the total goes so far beyond his calculations, that entire belief must, indeed, be deferred till some new data have been furnished. There are, perhaps, more peculiar encouragements to the increase of population there than in any other country, mostly arising from a salubrious climate, semi-annual crops, unceasing industry, early marriages, and an equable taxation, involving reasonable security of life and property. Turning to other countries of Asia, we soon observe that in Japan and Persia these causes have less influence; in Siam and Burmah they are weak; in Tibet they are almost powerless.

At this point every one must rest, as the result of an examination into the population of the Chinese Empire; though, from the survey of its principal divisions, made in the preceding chapters, its capability of maintaining a dense population needs no additional evidence. The mind, however, is bewildered in some degree by the contemplation of millions upon millions of human beings thus collected under one government; and it almost wishes there might be grounds for disbelieving the enormous total, from the dreadful results that might follow the tyrannical caprice or unrestrained fury of their rulers, or the still more shocking scenes of rapine and the hideous extremities of want which a bad harvest would necessarily cause.

Chinese literature contains many documents describing classes of society comprised in censuses in the various dynasties. The results of those enumerations have been digested by Ma Twan-lin in a judicious and intelligent manner in the chapters treating on population, from which M. Ed. Biot has elaborated many important data.[150] The early records show that the census was designed to contain only the number of taxable people, excluding all persons bound to give personal service, who were under the control of others. Moreover, all officials and slaves, all persons over 60 or 66 years of age, the weak or sick, those needing help, and sometimes such as were newly placed on state lands, were likewise omitted. Deducting these classes, Ma Twan-lin gives one census taken in the ninth century, B.C., as 13,704,923 persons, between the ages of 15 and 65, living within the frontiers north of the Yangtsz’ River. This figure would be worth, according to the tables of modern statistics, about 65 per cent. of the entire population, or as representing 21,753,528 inhabitants.

The mighty conqueror, Tsin Chí Hwangtí, changed the personal corvée to scutage, and introduced a kind of poll-tax, by accepting the money from many who could not be forced to do the work required. This practice was followed in the Han dynasty, and in B.C. 194, the poll-tax was legalized, to include all men between 15 and 66, while a lighter impost was levied on those between 7 and 14. During the four centuries of this family’s régime, the object and modes of a census were well understood. Ma Twan-lin gives the results of ten taken between A.D. 2 and 155. His details show that it was done simply for revenue, and was omitted in bad years, when drought or freshets destroyed the harvests; they show, too, an increase in the number of slaves, that women were now enumerated, and that girls between 15 and 30 paid a poll-tax. In B.C. 30, the limits of age were placed between 7 and 56. The average of these ten censuses is 63,500,600, the first one being as high as 83,640,000, while the next and lowest, taken fifty-five years afterwards, is only 29,180,000, and the third is 47,396,000. These great variations are explained by the disturbances arising in consequence of the usurpation of Wangmang, A.D. 9-27, and subsequent change of the capital, and the impossibility, during this troubled period, of canvassing all parts of the Empire. The inference from these data, that the real population of the Chinese Empire north of the Nan ling at the time of Christ was at least eighty millions, is as well grounded as almost any fact in its history.[151]

After the downfall of the Han dynasty, a long period of civil war ensued, in which the destruction of life and property was so enormous that the population was reduced to one-sixth of the amount set down in A.D. 230, when disease, epidemics, and earthquakes increased the losses caused by war and the cessation of agriculture, according to Ma Twan-lin; and it is not till A.D. 280, when the Tsin dynasty had subjected all to its sway, that the country began to revive. In that year an enumeration was made which stated the free people between 12 and 66 years in the land at 14,163,863, or 23,180,000 in all. From this period till the Sui dynasty came into power, in 589, China was torn by dissensions and rival monarchs, and the recorded censuses covered only a portion of the land, the figures including even fewer of the people, owing to the great number of serfs or bondmen who had sought safety under the protection of landowners. At this time a new mode of taking the census was ordered, in which the people were classified into those from 1 to 3 years, then 3 to 10, then 10 to 17, and 17 to 60, after which age they were not taxed; the ratio of the land tax was also fixed. A census taken in 606 in this way gives an estimated population of 46,019,956 in all China; the frontiers, at this period, hardly reached to the Nan ling Mountains, and the author’s explanation of the manner of carrying on some public works shows that even this sum did not include persons who were liable to be called on for personal service, while all officials, slaves, and beggars were omitted. Troubles arose again from these enforced works, and it was not till the advent to power of the Tang dynasty, in 618, that a regular enumeration was possible.

This family reigned 287 years, and Ma Twan-lin gives fifteen returns of the population up to 841. They show great variations, some of them difficult to explain even by omitting or supplying large classes of the inhabitants. The one most carefully taken was in A.D. 754, and gives an estimated total of about seventy millions for the whole Empire, which, though nearly the same as that in the Han dynasty in A.D. 2, extended over a far greater area, even to the whole southern seaboard. In addition to former enumerated classes, many thousands of priests were passed by in this census.

The years of anarchy following the Tang, till A.D. 976, when the Sung dynasty obtained possession, caused their usual effect. Its first census gives only about sixteen millions of taxable population that year, when its authority was not firmly assured; but in 1021 the returns rise to 43,388,380, and thence gradually increase to 100,095,250 in 1102, just before the provinces north of the Yellow River, by far the most fertile and loyal, were lost. The last enumeration, in 1223, while Ma Twan-lin was living, places the returns in the southern provinces at 63,304,000; this was fifty years before Kublai khan conquered the Empire. Our author gives some details concerning the classes included in the census during his own lifetime, which prove to a reasonable mind that the real number of mouths living on the land was, if anything, higher than the estimates. In 1290, the Mongol Emperor published his enumeration, placing the taxable population at 58,834,711, “not counting those who had fled to the mountains and lakes, or who had joined the rebels.” This was not long after his ruthless hand had almost depopulated vast regions in the northern provinces, before he could quiet them.

In the continuation of Ma Twan-lin’s Researches, there are sixteen censuses given for the Ming dynasty between 1381 and 1580; the lowest figure is 46,800,000, in 1506, and the highest, 66,590,000, in 1412, the average for the two centuries being 56,715,360 inhabitants. One of its compilers declares that he cannot reconcile their great discrepancies, and throws doubts on their totals from his inability to learn the mode of enumeration. Three are given for three consecutive years (1402-1404), the difference between the extremes of which amounts to sixteen millions, but they were all taken when Yungloh was fighting Kienwăn, his nephew, at Nanking, and settling himself at Peking as Emperor, during which years large districts could not possibly have been counted.

Before entering upon a careful examination of this question, it will be well to bring together the various estimates taken of the population during the present dynasty. The details given in the table on page 264 have been taken from the best sources, and are as good as the people themselves possess.

Besides these detailed accounts, there have been several aggregates of the whole country given by other native writers than Ma Twan-lin, and some by foreigners, professedly drawn from original sources, but who have not stated their authorities. The most trustworthy, together with those given in the other table, are here placed in chronological order.

Seven of these censuses, viz., the 7th, 8th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 20th, 21st and 23d, are given in detail in the following table. The first three belong to the Ming dynasty, and are taken from a continuation of Ma Twan-lin’s Researches, whence they were quoted in the Mirror of History, without their details. During the Ming dynasty, a portion of the country now called the Eighteen Provinces, was not under the control of Hungwu and his descendants. The wars with the Japanese, and with tribes on the north and west, together with the civil wars and struggles between the Chinese themselves, and with the Nü-chí in Manchuria, must have somewhat decreased the population.

TABLE OF THE DIFFERENT CENSUSES OF THE EIGHTEEN PROVINCES.

The first census of 1662 (No. 4), is incidentally mentioned by Kienlung in 1791, as having been taken at that time, from his making some observations upon the increase of the population and comparing the early censuses with the one he had recently ordered. This sum of 21,068,600 does not, however, include all the inhabitants of China at that date; for the Manchus commenced their sway in 1644, and did not exercise full authority over all the provinces much before 1700; Canton was taken in 1650, Formosa in 1683.

The census of 1668 (No. 5), shows a little increase over that of 1662, but is likewise confined to the conquered portions; and in those provinces which had been subdued, there were extensive tracts which had been almost depopulated at the conquest. Any one who reads the recitals of Semedo, Martini, Trigautius, and others, concerning the massacres and destruction of life both by the Manchus and by Chinese bandits, between 1630 and 1650, will feel no loss in accounting for the diminution of numbers, down to 1710. But the chief explanation of the decrease from sixty to twenty-seven millions is to be found in the object of taking the census, viz., to levy a poll-tax, and get at the number of men fit for the army—two reasons for most men to avoid the registration.

The census of 1711 (No. 8), is the first one on record which bears the appearance of credibility, when its several parts are compared with each other. The dates of the preceding (Nos. 6 and 7), are rather uncertain; the last was extracted by Dr. Morrison from a book published in 1790, and he thought it was probably taken as early as 1650, though that is unlikely. The other is given by Dr. Medhurst without any explanation, and their great disparity leads us to think that both are dated wrongly. The census of 1711 is much more consistent in itself, though there are some reasons for supposing that neither did it include all the population then in China. The census was still taken for enrolment in the army, and to levy a capitation tax upon all males between the ages of sixteen and sixty. But this tax and registration were evaded and resisted by the indignant Chinese, who had never been chronicled in this fashion by their own princes; the Emperor Kanghí, therefore, abolished the capitation tax. It was not till about this time that the Manchus had subdued and pacified the southern provinces, and it is not improbable that this census, and the survey taken by the Jesuits, were among their acts of sovereignty. Finding the people unwilling to be registered, the poll tax was merged in the land tax, and no census ordered during the reign of Yungching, till Kienlung revived it in order to have some guide in apportioning relief during seasons of distress and scarcity, establishing granaries, and aiding the police in their duties. Many, therefore, who would do all in their power to prevent their names being taken, when they were liable to be taxed or called on to do military service, could have no objection to come forward, when the design of the census was to benefit themselves. It matters very little, however, for what object the census was taken, if there is reason to believe it to have been accurate. It might indeed act as a stimulus to multiply names and figures whom there were no people to represent, as the principle of paying the marshals a percentage on the numbers they reported did in some parts of New York State in 1840.

The three next numbers (9, 10, and 11), are taken from De Guignes, who quotes Amiot, but gives no Chinese authorities. The last is given in full by De Guignes, and both this and that of Allerstein, dated twenty years after, are introduced into the table. There are some discrepancies between these two and the census of 1753, taken from the General Statistics, which cannot easily be reconciled. The internal evidence is in favor of the latter, over the census of 1743; it is taken from a new edition of the Ta Tsing Hwui Tien, or ‘General Statistics of the Empire,’ and the increase during the forty-two years which had elapsed since the last census is regular in all the provinces, with the exception of Shantung and Kiangnan. The extraordinary fertility of these provinces would easily induce immigration, while in the war of conquest, their populousness and wealth attracted the armies of the Manchus, and the destruction of life was disproportionably great. The smaller numbers given to the western and southern provinces correspond moreover to the opposition experienced in those regions. On the whole, the census taken in 1753 compares very well with that of 1711, and both of them bear an aspect of verity, which does not belong to the table of 1743 quoted by De Guignes.

From 1711 to 1753, the population doubled itself in about twenty-two years, premising that the whole country was faithfully registered at the first census. For instance, the province of Kweichau, in 1711, presents on the average a mere fraction of a little more than a single person to two square miles; while in 1753 it had increased in the unexampled ratio of three to a square mile, which is doubling its population every seven years; Kwangtung, Kwangsí, and Kansuh (all of them containing to this day, partially subdued tribes), had also multiplied their numbers in nearly the same proportion, owing in great measure, probably, to the more extended census than to the mere increase of population.

The amounts for 1736, three of 1743, and those of 1760, 1761, and 1762 (Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17), are all extracted from De Guignes, who took them from the Mémoires sur les Chinois. The last, that of 1762, is given in detail in the table. The discrepancy of sixty millions between that given by Amiot for 1760, and that by Dr. Morrison for the same year, is owing, there can be little doubt, to foreigners, and not to an error of the Chinese. The work from which Dr. Morrison extracted his estimate for that year was published in 1790, but the census was taken between 1760 and 1765. The same work contains the census of 1711 (No. 8), quoted by him, and there is good cause for believing that Amiot’s or Grosier’s estimate of 157,343,975 for 1743, is the very same census, he having multiplied the number 28,605,716 by five, supposing them to have been families and not individuals. The three ascribed to the year 1743, are probably all derived from the same native authorities by different individuals.

The three dated in 1760, 1761, and 1762, are harmonious with each other; but if they are taken, those of 1753 and 1760, extracted from the Yih Tung Chí by Dr. Morrison, must be rejected, which are far more reasonable, and correspond better with the preceding one of 1711. It may be remarked, that by reckoning five persons to a family in calculating the census of 1753, as Amiot does for 1743, the population would be 189,223,820 instead of 103,050,060, as given in the table. This explains the apparent decrease of fifty millions. All the discrepancies between these various tables and censuses must not be charged upon the Chinese, since it is by no means easy to ascertain their modes of taking the census and their use of terms. In the tables, for example, they employ the phrase jin-ting, for a male over 15 years of age, as the integer; this has, then, to be multiplied by some factor of increase to get at the total population; and this last figure must be obtained elsewhere. It must not be overlooked that the object in taking a census being to calculate the probable revenue by enumerating the taxable persons, the margin of error and deficiency depends on the peace of the state at the time, and not chiefly on the estimate of five or more to a household.

The amount for 1736 corresponds sufficiently closely with that for 1743; and reckoning the same number of persons in a family in 1753, that tallies well enough with those for 1760, 1761, and 1762, the whole showing a gradual increase for twenty-five years. But all of them, except that of 1753, are probably rated too high. That for 1762 (No. 17), has been justly considered as one of the most authentic.

The amount given by “Z.” of Berlin (No. 18), of 155⅓ millions for 1790 is quoted in the Chinese Repository, but the writer states no authorities, was probably never in China, and as it appears at present, is undeserving the least notice. That given by Dr. Morrison for 1792 (No. 19), the year before Lord Macartney’s embassy, is quoted from an edition of that date, but probably was really taken in 1765 or thereabouts, but he did not publish it in detail.[152] It is probably much nearer the truth than the amount of 333 millions by the commissioner Chau to the English ambassador. This estimate has had much more respect paid to it as an authentic document than it deserved. The Chinese commissioner would naturally wish to exalt his country in the eyes of its far-travelled visitors, and not having the official returns to refer to, would not be likely to state them less than they were. He gave the population of the provinces in round numbers, perhaps altogether from his own memory, aided by those of his attendant clerks, with the impression that his hearers would never be able to refer to the original native authorities.

The next one quoted (No. 21) is the most satisfactory of all the censuses in Chinese works, and was considered by both the Morrisons and by Dr. Bridgman, editor of the Chinese Repository, as “the most accurate that has yet been given of the population.”

In questions of this nature, one well authenticated table is worth a score of doubtful origin. It has been shown how apocryphal are many of the statements given in foreign books, but with the census of 1812, the source of error which is chiefly to be guarded against is the average given to a family. This is done by the Chinese themselves on no uniform plan, and it may be the case that the estimate of individuals from the number of families is made in separate towns, from an intimate acquaintance with the particular district, which would be less liable to error than a general average. The number of families given in the census of 1753, is 37,785,552, which is more than one-third of the population.

The four censuses which deserve the most credit, so far as the sources are considered, are those of 1711, 1753, 1792, and 1812 (i.e., Nos. 8, 13, 19, and 21); these, when compared, show the following rate of increase:

From 1711 to 1753, the population increased 74,222,602, which was an annual advance of 1,764,824 inhabitants, or a little more than six per cent. per annum for forty-two years. This high rate, it must be remembered, does not take into account the more thorough subjugation of the south and west at the later date, when the Manchus could safely enrol large districts, where in 1711 they would have found so much difficulty that they would not have attempted it.

From 1753 to 1792, the increase was 104,636,882, or an annual advance of 2,682,997 inhabitants, or about 2½ per cent. per annum for thirty-nine years. During this period, the country enjoyed almost uninterrupted peace under the vigorous sway of Kienlung, and the unsettled regions of the south and west rapidly filled up.

From 1792 to 1812, the increase was 54,126,679, or an annual advance of 2,706,333—not quite one per cent. per annum—for twenty years. At the same rate of progress the present population would amount to over 450,000,000, and this might have been the case had not the Tai-ping rebellion reduced the numbers. An enumeration (No. 22), was published by the Russian Professor of Chinese Vassilivitch in 1868 as a translation from official documents. Foreigners have had greater opportunities for travel through the country, between the years 1840 to 1880, and have ascertained the enormous depopulation in some places caused by wars, short supplies of food in consequence of scarcity of laborers, famines, or brigandage, each adding its own power of destruction at different places and times. The conclusion will not completely satisfy any inquirer, but the population of the Empire cannot now reasonably be estimated as high as the census of 1812, by at least twenty-five millions. The last in the list of these censuses (No. 23), is added as an example of the efforts of intelligent persons residing in China to come to a definite and independent conclusion on this point from such data as they can obtain. The Imperial Customs’ Service has been able to command the best native assistance in their researches, and the table of population given above from the Gotha Almanac is the summary of what has been ascertained. The population of extra-provincial China is really unknown at present. Manchuria is put down at twelve millions by one author, and three or four millions, by another, without any official authority for either; and all those vast regions in Ílí and Tibet may easily be set down at from twelve to fifteen millions. To sum up, one must confess that if the Chinese censuses are worth but little, compared with those taken in European states, they are better than the guesses of foreigners who have never been in the country, or who have travelled only partially in it.

The Chinese are doubtless one of the most conceited nations on the earth, but with all their vanity, they have never bethought themselves of rating their population twenty-five or thirty per cent. higher than they suppose it to be, for the purpose of exalting themselves in the eyes of foreigners or in their own. Except in one case none of the estimates were presented to, or intended to be known by foreigners. The distances in li between places given in Chinese itineraries correspond very well with the real distances; the number of districts, towns, and villages in the departments and provinces, as stated in their local and general topographical works, agree with the actual examination, so far as it can be made: why should their censuses be charged with gross error, when, however much we may doubt them, we cannot disprove them, and the weight of evidence derived from actual observation rather confirms them than otherwise; and while their account of towns, villages, distances, etc., are unhesitatingly adopted until better can be obtained? Some discrepancies in the various tables are ascribable to foreigners, and some of the censuses are incomplete, or the year cannot be precisely fixed, both of which vitiate the deductions made from them as to the rate of increase. Some reasons for believing that the highest population ascribed to the Chinese Empire is not greater than the country can support, will first be stated, and the objections against receiving the censuses then considered.[153]

The area of the Eighteen Provinces is rather imperfectly given at 1,348,870 square miles, and the average population, therefore, for the whole, in 1812, was 268 persons on every square mile; that of the nine eastern provinces in and near the Great Plain, comprising 502,192 square miles, or two-fifths of the whole, is 458 persons, and the nine southern and western provinces, constituting the other three-fifths, is 154 to a square mile. The surface and fertility of the country in these two portions differ so greatly, as to lead one to look for results like these. The areas of some European states and their population, are added to assist in making a comparison with China, and coming to a clearer idea about their relative density.

All these are regarded as well settled countries, but England and Bengal are the only ones which exceed that of China, taken as a whole, while none of them come up to the average of the eastern provinces. All of them, China included, fall far short, however, of the average population on a square mile of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, in the reigns of Abijah and Jeroboam, if the 1,200,000 men brought into the field by them can be taken as a ratio of the whole number of inhabitants; or if the accounts given by Josephus of the density in his day are trustworthy. In estimating the capabilities of these European countries to support a dense population, allowances must be made for roads, pasture-lands, and parks of noblemen, all of which afford little or no food.

In England and Wales, there are nearly twenty-nine millions of acres under cultivation, seventeen millions of which are pasture-lands, and only ten millions devoted to grain and vegetables; the other two millions consist of fallow-ground, hop-beds, etc. One author estimates that in England 42 acres in a hundred, and in Ireland 64, are pastures—a little more than half of the whole. There are, then, on the average about two acres of land for the support of each individual, or rather less than this, if the land required for the food of horses be subtracted. It has been calculated that eight men can be fed on the same amount of land that one horse requires; and that four acres of pasture-land will furnish no more food for man than one of ploughed land. The introduction of railroads has superseded the use of horses to such an extent that it is estimated there are only 200,000 horses now in England, instead of a million in 1830. If, therefore, one-half the land appropriated to pasture should be devoted to grain, and no more horses and dogs raised than a million of acres could support, England and Wales could easily maintain a population of more than four hundred to a square mile, supposing them to be willing to live on what the land and water can furnish.

The Irish consume a greater proportion of vegetables than the English, even since the improvement by emigration after 1851; many of these live a beggarly life upon half an acre, and even less, and seldom taste animal food. The quantity of land under cultivation in Belgium is about fifteen-seventeenths of the whole, which gives an average of about two acres to each person, or the same as in England. In these two countries, the people consume more meat than in Ireland, and the amount of land occupied for pasturage is in nearly equal proportions in Belgium and England. In France, the average of cultivated land is 1⅔ acre; in Holland, 1⅘ acre to each person.