S. Wells Williams

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.

CREDIT DUE TO CHINESE CENSUSES.

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.

MA TWAN-LIN’S STUDY OF THE CENSUSES.

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 Kienwan, his nephew, at Nanking, and settling himself at Peking as Emperor, during which years large districts could not possibly have been counted.

COMPARATIVE CENSUS TABLES.

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.

	Reign of Monarch.		A.D.	Population.	Authorities.
1.	Hungwu,	13th year,	1381	59,850,000	Continuation of Ma Twan-lin. Ed. Biot, Journal Asiatique, 1836.
2.	Yungloh,	9th year,	1412	65,377,000
3.	Wanleih,	7th year,	1580	60,692,000
4.	ShunchÍ,	18th year,	1662	21,068,600	General Statistics of the Empire; Medhurst’s China, p. 53.
5.	KanghÍ,	6th year,	1668	25,386,209
6.	„	49th year,	1710?	23,312,200
7.	„	49th year,	1710?	27,241,129	Yih Tung ChÍ, a statistical work; Morrison’s View of China.
8.	„	50th year,	1711	28,605,716	General Statistics; Chinese Repository, Vol. I, p. 359.
9.	Kienlung,	1st year,	1736	125,046,245	MÉmoires sur les Chinois, Tome VI., p. 277 ff.
10.	„	8th year,	1743	157,343,975
11.	„	8th year,	1743	149,332,730
12.	„	8th year,	1743	150,265,475	Les Missionaires, De Guignes, Tome III., p. 67.
13.	„	18th year,	1753	103,050,060	General Statistics; Chinese Repository, Vol. I., p. 359.
14.	„	25th year,	1760?	143,125,225	Yih Tung Chi, a statistical work; Morrison’s View of China.
15.	„	25th year,	1760?	203,916,477	MÉmoires sur les Chinois, Tome VI. De Guignes, Tome III., p. 72.
16.	„	26th year,	1761	205,293,053
17.	„	27th year,	1762	198,214,553	Allerstein; Grosier; De Guignes, Tome III., p. 67.
18.	„	55th year,	1790	155,249,897	“Z.” of Berlin, in Chinese Repository, Vol. I., p. 361.
19.	„	57th year,	1792	307,467,200	General Statistics; Dr. Morrison, Anglo-Chinese Coll. Report, 1829. Statement made to Lord Macartney.
20.	„	57th year,	1792	333,000,000
21.	Kiaking,	17th year,	1812	362,467,183	General Statistics; Chinese Repository, Vol. I., p. 359.
22.	TungchÍ,	8th year,	1868	404,946,514	Vassilivitch. Chinese Custom’s Reports.
23.	KwangsÜ,	7th year,	1881	380,000,000

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.

PROVINCES.	Area in English square miles.	Aver. population to a sq. m. in 1812.	Census in 1710, or before.	Census of 1711.	Census of 1758.	Last Census of 1812.	Estimate in 1792, given Macartney.	Census in 1762 by Allerstein.	Census of 1743, from De Guignes.	Almanac de Gotha, 1882, taken from Chinese Customs’ Reports.	Revenue in taels of $1.33 each.
ChihlÍ	58,949	475	3,260,075	3,274,870	9,374,217	27,990,871	38,000,000	15,222,940	16,702,765	28,000,000	3,942,000
Shantung	65,104	444	.........	2,278,595	12,769,872	28,958,764	24,000,000	25,180,734	12,159,680	29,000,000	6,344,000
ShansÍ	55,268	252	1,792,329	1,727,144	5,162,351	14,004,210	27,000,000	9,768,189	8,969,475	17,056,925	6,313,000
Honan	65,104	420	2,005,088	3,094,150	7,114,346	23,037,171	25,000,000	16,332,507	12,637,280	29,069,771	5,651,000
Kiangsu	44,500	850	3,917,707	2,656,465	12,618,987	37,843,501	32,000,000	23,161,409	26,766,365	37,800,000	11,733,000
Nganhwui	48,461	705	1,350,131	1,357,829	12,435,361	34,168,059		22,761,030		34,200,000
KiangsÍ	72,176	320	5,528,499	2,172,587	5,055,251	23,046,999	19,000,000	11,006,640	6,681,350	23,000,000	3,744,000
Chehkiang	39,150	671	2,710,649	2,710,312	8,662,808	26,256,784	21,000,000	15,429,690	15,623,990	26,300,000	5,856,000
Fuhkien	53,480	276	1,468,145	706,311	4,710,399	14,777,410	15,000,000	8,063,671	7,643,035	14,800,000	2,344,000
Hupeh	70,450	389	469,927	433,943	4,568,860	27,370,098	14,000,000	8,080,603	4,264,850	27,400,000	2,091,000
Hunan	74,320	251	375,782	335,034	4,336,332	18,652,507	13,000,000	8,829,320		20,048,969	1,905,000
ShensÍ	67,400	153	240,809	2,150,696	3,851,043	10,207,256	18,000,000	7,287,443	14,804,035	10,309,769	3,042,000
Kansuh	86,608	175	311,972	368,525	2,133,222	15,193,125	12,000,000	7,812,014		9,285,377	563,000
Sz’chuen	166,800	128	144,154	3,802,689	1,368,496	21,435,678	27,000,000	2,782,976	15,181,710	35,000,000	2,968,000
Kwangtung	79,456	241	1,148,918	1,142,747	3,969,248	19,174,030	21,000,000	6,797,597	6,006,600	19,200,000	193,000
KwangsÍ	78,250	93	205,995	210,674	1,975,619	7,313,895	10,000,000	3,947,414	1,143,450	8,121,327	794,000
Kweichau	64,554	82	51,089	37,731	1,718,848	5,288,219	9,000,000	3,402,722	255,445	5,679,128	185,000
Yunnan	107,969	51	2,255,666	145,414	1,003,058	5,561,320	8,000,000	2,078,802	1,189,825	5,823,670	432,000
Shingking	.......	..	4,194	.......	221,742	2,167,286	.........	668,852	235,620	.........	.......
	1,297,999	268	27,241,129	28,605,716	103,050,060	362,447,183	333,000,000	198,214,553	150,265,475	380,000,000	58,097,000

PROVINCES.	Area in English square miles.	Aver. population to a sq. m. in 1812.	Census in 1710, or before.	Census of 1711.	Census of 1758.	Last Census of 1812.
ChihlÍ	58,949	475	3,260,075	3,274,870	9,374,217	27,990,871
Shantung	65,104	444	.........	2,278,595	12,769,872	28,958,764
ShansÍ	55,268	252	1,792,329	1,727,144	5,162,351	14,004,210
Honan	65,104	420	2,005,088	3,094,150	7,114,346	23,037,171
Kiangsu	44,500	850	3,917,707	2,656,465	12,618,987	37,843,501
Nganhwui	48,461	705	1,350,131	1,357,829	12,435,361	34,168,059
KiangsÍ	72,176	320	5,528,499	2,172,587	5,055,251	23,046,999
Chehkiang	39,150	671	2,710,649	2,710,312	8,662,808	26,256,784
Fuhkien	53,480	276	1,468,145	706,311	4,710,399	14,777,410
Hupeh	70,450	389	469,927	433,943	4,568,860	27,370,098
Hunan	74,320	251	375,782	335,034	4,336,332	18,652,507
ShensÍ	67,400	153	240,809	2,150,696	3,851,043	10,207,256
Kansuh	86,608	175	311,972	368,525	2,133,222	15,193,125
Sz’chuen	166,800	128	144,154	3,802,689	1,368,496	21,435,678
Kwangtung	79,456	241	1,148,918	1,142,747	3,969,248	19,174,030
KwangsÍ	78,250	93	205,995	210,674	1,975,619	7,313,895
Kweichau	64,554	82	51,089	37,731	1,718,848	5,288,219
Yunnan	107,969	51	2,255,666	145,414	1,003,058	5,561,320
Shingking	.......	..	4,194	.......	221,742	2,167,286
	1,297,999	268	27,241,129	28,605,716	103,050,060	362,447,183

Estimate in 1792, given Macartney.	Census in 1762 by Allerstein.	Census of 1743, from De Guignes.	Almanac de Gotha, 1882, taken from Chinese Customs’ Reports.	Revenue in taels of $1.33 each.
38,000,000	15,222,940	16,702,765	28,000,000	3,942,000
24,000,000	25,180,734	12,159,680	29,000,000	6,344,000
27,000,000	9,768,189	8,969,475	17,056,925	6,313,000
25,000,000	16,332,507	12,637,280	29,069,771	5,651,000
32,000,000	23,161,409	26,766,365	37,800,000	11,733,000
	22,761,030		34,200,000
19,000,000	11,006,640	6,681,350	23,000,000	3,744,000
21,000,000	15,429,690	15,623,990	26,300,000	5,856,000
15,000,000	8,063,671	7,643,035	14,800,000	2,344,000
14,000,000	8,080,603	4,264,850	27,400,000	2,091,000
13,000,000	8,829,320		20,048,969	1,905,000
18,000,000	7,287,443	14,804,035	10,309,769	3,042,000
12,000,000	7,812,014		9,285,377	563,000
27,000,000	2,782,976	15,181,710	35,000,000	2,968,000
21,000,000	6,797,597	6,006,600	19,200,000	193,000
10,000,000	3,947,414	1,143,450	8,121,327	794,000
9,000,000	3,402,722	255,445	5,679,128	185,000
8,000,000	2,078,802	1,189,825	5,823,670	432,000
.........	668,852	235,620	.........	.......
333,000,000	198,214,553	150,265,475	380,000,000	58,097,000

THE CENSUSES INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDERED.

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.

COMPARISON OF LATER CENSUSES.

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 155? 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 MOST RELIABLE CENSUSES.

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.

PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE IN THEIR FAVOR.

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]

DENSITY OF POPULATIONS IN EUROPE AND CHINA.

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.

States.	Area.	Population.	Average to sq. m.	Census of
France	204,092	36,905,788	182	December, 1876.
Germany	212,091	45,194,172	213	December, 1880.
Great Britain	121,608	35,246,562	289	April, 1881.
Italy	114,296	28,437,091	249	December, 1879.
Holland	20,497	4,060,580	198	December, 1880.
Spain	190,625	16,053,961	84	December, 1877.
Japan	160,474	34,338,479	213	1877.
Bengal	156,200	68,750,747	440	1881.

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 1? acre; in Holland, 1? acre to each person.

If the same proportion between the arable and uncultivated land exists in China as in England, namely one-fourth, there are about six hundred and fifty millions of acres under cultivation in China; and we are not left altogether to conjecture, for by a report made to Kienlung in 1745, it appears that the area of the land under cultivation was 595,598,221 acres; a subsequent calculation places it at 640,579,381 acres, which is almost the same proportion as in England. Estimating it at six hundred and fifty millions—for it has since increased rather than diminished—it gives one acre and four-fifths to every person, which is by no means a small supply for the Chinese, considering that there are no cultivated pastures or meadows.

In comparing the population of different countries, the manner of living and the articles of food in use, form such important elements of the calculation, in ascertaining whether the country be overstocked or not, that a mere tabular view of the number of persons on a square mile is an imperfect criterion of the amount of inhabitants the land would maintain if they consumed the same food, and lived in the same manner in all of them. Living as the Chinese, Hindus, Japanese, and other Asiatics do, chiefly upon vegetables, the country can hardly be said to maintain more than one-half or one-third as many people on a square mile as it might do, if their energies were developed to the same extent with those of the English or Belgians. The population of these eastern regions has been repressed by the combined influences of ignorance, insecurity of life and property, religious prejudices, vice, and wars, so that the land has never maintained as many inhabitants as one would have otherwise reasonably expected therefrom.

Nearly all the cultivated soil in China is employed in raising food for man. Woollen garments and leather are little used, while cotton and mulberry cultivation take up only a small proportion of the soil. There is not, so far as is known, a single acre of land sown with grass-seed, and therefore almost no human labor is devoted to raising food for animals, which will not also serve to sustain man. Horses are seldom used for pomp or war, for travelling or carrying burdens, but mules, camels, asses, and goats are employed for transportation and other purposes north of the Yangtsz’ River. Horses are fed on cooked rice, bran, sorghum seed, pulse, oats, and grass cut along the banks of streams, or on hillsides. In the southern and eastern provinces, all animals are rare, the transport of goods and passengers being done by boats or by men. The natives make no use of butter, cheese, or milk, and the few cattle employed in agriculture easily gather a living on the waste ground around the villages. In the south, the buffalo is applied more than the ox to plough the rice fields, and the habits of this animal make it cheaper to keep him in good condition, while he can also do more work. The winter stock is grass cut upon the hills, straw, bean stalks, and vegetables. No wool being wanted for making cloth, flocks of sheep and goats are seldom seen—it may almost be said are unknown in the east and south.

No animal is reared cheaper than the hog; hatching and raising ducks affords employment to thousands of people; hundreds of these fowl gather their own food along the river shore, being easily attended by a single keeper. Geese and poultry are also cheaply reared. In fishing, which is carried on to an enormous extent, no pasture-grounds, no manuring, no barns, are needed, nor are taxes paid by the cultivator and consumer.

While the people get their animal food in these ways, its preparation takes away the least possible amount of cultivated soil. The space occupied for roads and pleasure-grounds is insignificant, but there is perhaps an amount appropriated for burial places quite equal to the area used for those purposes in European countries; it is, however, less valuable land, and much of it would be useless for culture, even if otherwise unoccupied. Graves are dug on hills, in ravines and copses, and wherever they will be retired and dry; or if in the ancestral field, they do not hinder the crop growing close around them. Moreover, it is very common to preserve the coffin in temples and cemeteries until it is decayed, partly in order to save the expense of a grave, and partly to worship the remains, or preserve them until gathered to their fathers, in their distant native places. They are often placed in the corners of the fields, or under precipices where they remain till dust returns to dust, and bones and wood both moulder away. These and other customs limit the consumption of land for graves much more than would be supposed, when one sees, as at Macao, almost as much space taken up by the dead for a grave as by the living for a hut. The necropolis of Canton occupies the hills north of the city, of which not one-fiftieth part could ever have been used for agriculture, but where cattle are allowed to graze, as much as if there were no tombs.

Under its genial and equable climate, more than three-fourths of the area of China Proper produces two crops annually. In Kwangtung, KwangsÍ, and Fuhkien, two crops of rice are taken year after year from the low lands; while in the loess regions of the northwest, a three-fold return from the grain fields is annually looked for, if the rain-fall is not withheld. In the winter season, in the neighborhood of towns, a third crop of sweet potatoes, cabbages, turnips, or some other vegetable is grown. De Guignes estimates the returns of a rice crop at ten for one, which, with the vegetables, will give full twenty-five fold from an acre in a year; few parts, however, yield this increase. Little or no land lies fallow, for constant manuring and turning of the soil prevents the necessity of repose. The diligence exhibited in collecting and applying manure is well known, and if all this industry result in the production of two crops instead of one, it really doubles the area under cultivation, when its superficies are compared with those of other countries. If the amount of land which produces two crops be estimated at one-fourth of the whole (and it is perhaps as near one-third), the area of arable land in the provinces may be considered as representing a total of 812 millions of acres, or 2¾ acres to an individual. The land is not, however, cut up into such small farms as to prevent its being managed as well as the people know how to stock and cultivate it; manual labor is the chief dependence of the farmer, fewer cattle, carts, ploughs, and machines being employed than in other countries. In rice fields no animals are used after the wet land has received the shoots, transplanting, weeding, and reaping being done by men.

In no other country besides Japan is so much food derived from the water. Not only are the coasts, estuaries, rivers, and lakes, covered with fishing-boats of various sizes, which are provided with everything fitted for the capture of whatever lives in the waters, but the spawn of fish is collected and reared. Rice fields are often converted into pools in the winter season, and stocked with fish; and the tanks dug for irrigation usually contain fish. By all these means, an immense supply of food is obtained at a cheap rate, which is eaten fresh or preserved with or without salt, and sent over the Empire, at a cost which places it within the reach of all above beggary. Other articles of food, both animal and vegetable, such as dogs, game, worms, spring greens, tripang, leaves, etc., do indeed compose part of their meals, but it is comparatively an inconsiderable fraction, and need not enter into the calculation. Enough has been stated to show that the land is abundantly able to support the population ascribed to it, even with all the drawbacks known to exist; and that, taking the highest estimate to be true, and considering the mode of living, the average population on a square mile in China is less than in several European countries.

The political and social causes which tend to multiply the inhabitants are numerous and powerful. The failure of male posterity to continue the succession of the family, and worship at the tombs of parents, is considered by all classes as one of the most afflictive misfortunes of life; the laws allow unlimited facilities of adoption, and secure the rights of those taken into the family in this way. The custom of betrothing children, and the obligation society imposes upon the youth when arrived at maturity, to fulfil the contracts entered into by their parents, acts favorably to the establishment of families and the nurture of children, and restricts polygamy. Parents desire children for a support in old age, as there is no legal or benevolent provision for aged poverty, and public opinion stigmatizes the man who allows his aged or infirm parents to suffer when he can help them. The law requires the owners of domestic slaves to provide husbands for their females, and prohibits the involuntary or forcible separation of husband and wife, or parents and children, when the latter are of tender age. All these causes and influences tend to increase population, and equalize the consumption and use of property more, perhaps, than in any other land.

The custom of families remaining together tends to the same result. The local importance of a large family in the country is weakened by its male members removing to town, or emigrating; consequently, the patriarch of three or four generations endeavors to retain his sons and grandsons around him, their houses joining his, and they and their families forming a social, united company. Such cases as those mentioned in the Sacred Commands are of course rare, where nine generations of the family of Chang Kung-Í inhabited one house, or of Chin, at whose table seven hundred mouths were daily fed,[154] but it is the tendency of society. This remark does not indicate that great landed proprietors exist, whose hereditary estates are secured by entail to the great injury of the state, as in Great Britain, for the farms are generally small and cultivated by the owner or on the metayer system. Families are supported on a more economical plan, the claims of kindred are better enforced, the land is cultivated with more care, and the local importance of the family perpetuated. This is, however, a very different system from that advocated by Fourier in France, or Greeley in America, for these little communities are placed under one natural head, whose authority is acknowledged and upheld, and his indignation feared. Workmen of the same profession form unions, each person contributing a certain sum on the promise of assistance when sick or disabled, and this custom prevents and alleviates a vast amount of poverty.

The obstacles put in the way of emigrating beyond sea, both in law and prejudice, operate to deter respectable persons from leaving their native land. Necessity has made the law a dead letter, and thousands annually leave their homes. No better evidence of the dense population can be offered to those acquainted with Chinese feelings and character, than the extent of emigration. “What stronger proof,” observes Medhurst, “of the dense population of China could be afforded than the fact, that emigration is going on in spite of restrictions and disabilities, from a country where learning and civilization reign, and where all the dearest interests and prejudices of the emigrants are found, to lands like Burmah, Siam, Cambodia, Tibet, Manchuria, and the Indian Archipelago, where comparative ignorance and barbarity prevail, and where the extremes of a tropical or frozen region are to be exchanged for a mild and temperate climate? Added to this consideration, that not a single female is permitted or ventures to leave the country, when consequently, all the tender attachments that bind heart to heart must be burst asunder, and, perhaps, forever.”[155]

Moreover, if they return with wealth enough to live upon, they are liable to the vexatious extortions of needy relatives, sharpers, and police, who have a handle for their fleecing whip in the law against leaving the country;[156] although this clause has been neutralized by subsequent acts, and is not in force, the power of public opinion is against going. A case occurred in 1832, at Canton, where the son of a Chinese living in Calcutta, who had been sent home by his parent with his mother, to perform the usual ceremonies in the ancestral hall, was seized by his uncle as he was about to be married, on the pretext that his father had unequally divided the paternal inheritance; he was obliged to pay a thousand dollars to free himself. Soon after his marriage, a few sharpers laid hold of him and bore him away in a sedan, as he was walking near his house, but his cries attracted the police, who carried them all to the magistrates, where he was liberated—after being obliged to fee his deliverers.[157] Another case occurred in Macao in 1838. A man had been living several years in Singapore as a merchant, and when he settled in Macao still kept up an interest in the trade with that place. Accounts of his great wealth became rumored abroad, and he was seriously annoyed by relatives. One night, a number of thieves, dressed like police-runners, came to his house to search for opium, and their boisterous manner terrified him to such a degree, that in order to escape them he jumped from the terrace upon the hard gravelled court-yard, and broke his leg, of which he shortly afterward died. A third case is mentioned, where the returned emigrants, consisting of a man and his wife, who was a Malay, and two children, were rescued from extortion, when before the magistrate, by the kindness of his wife and mother, who wished to see the foreign woman.[158] Such instances are now unknown, owing to the increase of emigration; they were, indeed, never numerically great, on account of the small number of those who came back.

The anxiety of the government to provide stores of food for times of scarcity, shows rather its fear of the disastrous results following a short crop—such as the gathering of clamorous crowds of starving poor, the increase of bandits and disorganization of society—than any peculiar care of the rulers, or that these storehouses really supply deficiencies. The evil consequences resulting from an overgrown population are experienced in one or another part of the provinces almost every year; and drought, inundations, locusts, mildew, or other natural causes, often give rise to insurrections and disturbances. There can be no doubt, however, that, without adding a single acre to the area of arable land, these evils would be materially alleviated, if the intercommunication of traders and their goods, between distant parts of the country, were more frequent, speedy, and safe; but this is not likely to be the case until both rulers and ruled make greater advances in just government, science, obedience, and regard for each other’s right.

It would be a satisfaction if foreigners could verify any part of the census. But this is, at present, impossible. They cannot examine the records in the office of the Board of Revenue, nor can they ascertain the population in a given district from the archives in the hands of the local authorities, or the mode of taking it. Neither can they go through a village or town to count the number of houses and their inhabitants, and calculate from actual examination of a few parts what the whole would be. Wherever foreigners have journeyed, there has appeared much the same succession of waste land, hilly regions, cultivated plains, and wooded heights, as in other countries, with an abundance of people, but not more than the land could support, if properly tilled.

The people are grouped into hamlets and villages, under the control of village elders and officers. In the district of Nanhai, which forms the western part of the city of Canton, and the surrounding country for more than a hundred square miles, there are one hundred and eighty hiang or villages; the population of each hiang varies from two hundred and upwards to one hundred thousand, but ordinarily ranges between three hundred and thirty-five hundred. If each of the eighty-eight districts in the province of Kwangtung contains the same number of hiang, there will be, including the district towns, 15,928 villages, towns, and cities in all, with an average population of twelve hundred inhabitants to each. From the top of the hills on Dane’s Island, at Whampoa, thirty-six towns and villages can be counted, of which Canton is one; and four of these contain from twelve to fifteen hundred houses. The whole district of Hiangshan, in which Macao lies, is also well covered with villages, though their exact number is not known. The island of Amoy contains more than fourscore villages and towns, and this island forms only a part of the district of Tung-ngan. The banks of the river leading from Amoy up to Changchau fu, are likewise well peopled. The environs of Ningpo and Shanghai are closely settled, though that is no more than one always expects near large cities, where the demand for food in the city itself causes the vicinity to be well peopled and tilled. In a notice of an irruption of the sea in 1819, along the coast of Shantung, it was reported that a hundred and forty villages were laid under water.

Marco Polo describes the mode followed in the days of Kublai khan: “It is the custom for every burgess of the city, and in fact for every description of person in it, to write over his door his own name, the name of his wife, and those of his children, his slaves, and all the inmates of his house, and also the number of animals that he keeps. And if any one dies in the house, then the name of that person is erased, and if a child is born its name is added. So in this way the sovereign is able to know exactly the population of the city. And this is the practice throughout all Manzi and Cathay.”[159] This custom was observed long before the Mongol conquest, and is followed at present; so that it is perhaps easier to take a census in China than in most European countries.

The law upon this subject is contained in Secs. LXXV. and LXXVI. of the statutes. It enacts various penalties for not registering the members of a family, and its provisions all go to show that the people are desirous rather of evading the census than of exaggerating it. When a family has omitted to make any entry, the head of it is liable to be punished with one hundred blows if he is a freeholder, and with eighty if he is not. If the master of a family has among his household another distinct family whom he omits to register, the punishment is the same as in the last clause, with a modification, according as the unregistered persons and family are relatives or strangers. Persons in government employ omitting to register their families, are less severely punished. A master of family failing to register all the males in his household who are liable to public service, shall be punished with from sixty to one hundred blows, according to the demerits of the offence; this clause was in effect repealed, when the land tax was substituted for the capitation tax. Omissions, from neglect or inadvertency to register all the individuals and families in a village or town, on the part of the headmen or government clerks, are punishable with different degrees of severity. All persons whatsoever are to be registered according to their accustomed occupations or professions, whether civil or military, whether couriers, artisans, physicians, astrologers, laborers, musicians, or of any other denomination whatever; and subterfuges in representing one’s self as belonging to a profession not liable to public service, are visited as usual with the bamboo; persons falsely describing themselves as belonging to the army, in order to evade public service, are banished as well as beaten.[160] From these clauses it is seen that the Manchus have extended the enumeration to classes which were exempted in the Han, Tang, and other dynasties, and thus come nearer to the actual population.

“In the Chinese government,” observes Dr. Morrison, “there appears great regularity and system. Every district has its appropriate officers, every street its constable, and every ten houses their tything man. Thus they have all the requisite means of ascertaining the population with considerable accuracy. Every family is required to have a board always hanging up in the house, and ready for the inspection of authorized officers, on which the names of all persons, men, women, and children, in the house are inscribed. This board is called mun-pai or ‘door-tablet,’ because when there are women and children within, the officers are expected to take the account from the board at the door. Were all the inmates of a family faithfully inserted, the amount of the population would, of course, be ascertained with great accuracy. But it is said that names are sometimes omitted through neglect or design; others think that the account of persons given in is generally correct.” The door-tablets are sometimes pasted on the door, thus serving as a kind of door-plate; in these cases correctness of enumeration is readily secured, for the neighbors are likely to know if the record is below the truth, and the householder is not likely to exaggerate the taxable inmates under his roof. I have read these mun-pai on the doors of a long row of houses; they were printed blanks filled in, and then pasted outside for the pao-kiah or tithing man to examine. Both Dr. Morrison and his son, than whom no one has had better opportunities to know the true state of the case, or been more desirous of dealing fairly with the Chinese, regarded the censuses given in the General Statistics as more trustworthy than any other documents available.

In conclusion, it may be asked, are the results of the enumeration of the people, as contained in the statistical works published by the government, to be rejected or doubted, therefore, because the Chinese officers do not wish to ascertain the exact population; or because they are not capable of doing it; or, lastly, because they wish to impose upon foreign powers by an arithmetical array of millions they do not possess? The question seems to hang upon this trilemma. It is acknowledged that they falsify or garble statements in a manner calculated to throw doubt upon everything they write, as in the reports of victories and battles sent to the Emperor, in the memorials upon the opium trade, in their descriptions of natural objects in books of medicine, and in many other things. But the question is as applicable to China as to France: is the estimated population of France in 1801 to be called in question, because the Moniteur gave false accounts of Napoleon’s battles in 1813? It would be a strange combination of conceit and folly, for a ministry composed of men able to carry on all the details of a complicated government like that of China, to systematically exaggerate the population, and then proceed, for more than a century, with taxation, disbursements, and official appointments, founded upon these censuses. Somebody at least must know them to be worthless, and the proof that they were so, must, one would think, ere long be apparent. The provinces and departments have been divided and subdivided since the Jesuits made their survey, because they were becoming too densely settled for the same officers to rule over them.

Still less will any one assert that the Chinese are not capable of taking as accurate a census as they are of measuring distances, or laying out districts and townships. Errors may be found in the former as well as in the latter, and doubtless are so; for it is not contended that the four censuses of 1711, 1753, 1792, and 1812 are as accurate as those now taken in England, France, or the United States, but that they are the best data extant, and that if they are rejected we leave tolerable evidence and take up with that which is doubtful and suppositive. The censuses taken in China since the Christian era are, on the whole, more satisfactory than those of all other nations put together up to the Reformation, and further careful research will no doubt increase our respect for them.

Ere long we may be able to traverse a census in its details of record and deduction, and thus satisfy a reasonable curiosity, especially as to the last reported total after the carnage of the rebellion. On the other hand, it may be stated that in the last census, the entire population of Manchuria, Koko-nor, ÍlÍ, and Mongolia, is estimated at only 2,167,286 persons, and nearly all the inhabitants of those vast regions are subject to the Emperor. The population of Tibet is not included in any census, its people not being taxable. It is doubtful if an enumeration of any part of the extra provincial territory has ever been taken, inasmuch as the Mongol tribes, and still less the Usbeck or other Moslem races, are unused to such a thing, and would not be numbered. Yet, the Chinese cannot be charged with exaggeration, when good judges, as Klaproth and others, reckon the whole at between six and seven millions; and Khoten alone, one author states, has three and a half millions. No writer of importance estimates the inhabitants of these regions as high as thirty millions—as does R. Mont. Martin—which would be more than ten to a square mile, excluding Gobi; while Siberia (though not so well peopled) has only 3,611,300 persons on an area of 2,649,600 square miles, or 1? to each square mile.

The reasons just given why the Chinese desire posterity are not all those which have favored national increase. The uninterrupted peace which the country enjoyed between the years 1700 and 1850 operated to greatly develop its resources. Every encouragement has been given to all classes to multiply and fill the land. Polygamy, slavery, and prostitution, three social evils which check increase, have been circumscribed in their effects. Early betrothment and poverty do much to prevent the first; female slaves can be and are usually married; while public prostitution is reduced by a separation of the sexes and early marriages. No fears of overpassing the supply of food restrain the people from rearing families, though the Emperor Kienlung issued a proclamation in 1793, calling upon all ranks of his subjects to economize the gifts of heaven, lest, erelong, the people exceed the means of subsistence.

It is difficult to see what this or that reason or objection has to do with the subject, except where the laws of population are set at defiance, which is not the case in China. Food and work, peace and security, climate and fertile soil, not universities or steamboats, are the encouragements needed for the multiplication of mankind; though they do not have that effect in all countries (as in Mexico and Brazil), it is no reason why they should not in others. There are grounds for believing that not more than two-thirds of the whole population of China were included in the census of 1711, but that allowance cannot be made for Ireland in 1785; and consequently, her annual percentage of increase, up to 1841, would then be greater than China, during the forty-two years ending with 1753. McCulloch quotes De Guignes approvingly, but the Frenchman takes the rough estimate of 333,000,000 given to Macartney, which is less trustworthy than that of 307,467,200, and compares it with Grosier’s of 157,343,975, which is certainly wrong through his misinterpretation. De Guignes proceeds from the data in his possession in 1802 (which were less than those now available), and from his own observations in travelling through the country in 1796, to show the improbability of the estimated population. But the observations made in journeys, taken as were those of the English and Dutch embassies, though they passed through some of the best provinces, cannot be regarded as good evidence against official statistics.

Would any one suppose, in travelling from Boston to Chatham, and then from Albany to Buffalo, along the railroad, that Massachusetts contained, in 1870, exactly double the population on a square mile of New York? So, in going from Peking to Canton, the judgment which six intelligent travellers might form of the population of China could easily be found to differ by one-half. De Guignes says, after comparing China with Holland and France, “All these reasons clearly demonstrate that the population of China does not exceed that of other countries;” and such is in truth the case, if the kind of food, number of crops, and materials of dress be taken into account. His remarks on the population and productiveness of the country are, like his whole work, replete with good sense and candor; but some of his deductions would have been different, had he been in possession of all the data since obtained.[161] The discrepancies between the different censuses have been usually considered a strong internal evidence against them, and they should receive due consideration. The really difficult point is to fix the percentage that must be allowed for the classes not included as taxable, and the power of the government to enumerate those who wished to avoid a census and the subsequent taxation.

After all these reasons for receiving the total of 1812 as the best one, there are, on the other hand, two principal objections against taking the Chinese census as altogether trustworthy. The first is the enormous averages of 850, 705, and 671 inhabitants on a square mile, severally apportioned to Kiangsu, Nganhwui, and Chehkiang, or, what is perhaps a fairer calculation, of 458 persons to the nine eastern provinces. Whatever amount of circumstantial evidence may be brought forward in confirmation of the census as a whole, and explanation of the mode of taking it, a more positive proof seems to be necessary before giving implicit credence to this result. Such a population on such an extensive area is marvellous, notwithstanding the fertility of the soil, facilities of navigation, and salubrity of the climate of these regions, although acknowledged to be almost unequalled. While we admit the full force of all that has been urged in support of the census, and are willing to take it as the best document on the subject extant, it is desirable to have proofs derived from personal observation, and to defer the settlement of this question until better opportunities are afforded. So high an average is, indeed, not without example. Captain Wilkes ascertained, in 1840, that one of the islands of the Fiji group supported a population of over a thousand on a square mile. On Lord North’s Island, in the Pelew group, the crew of the American whaler Mentor ascertained there were four hundred inhabitants living on half a square mile. These, and many other islands in that genial clime, contain a population far exceeding that of any large country, and each separate community is obliged to depend wholly on its own labor. They cannot, however, be cited as altogether parallel cases, though if it be true, as Barrow says, “that an acre of cotton will clothe two or three hundred persons,” not much more land need be occupied with cotton or mulberry plants, for clothing in China, than in the South Sea Islands.

The second objection against receiving the result of the census is, that we are not well informed as to the mode of enumerating the people by families, and the manner of taking the account, when the patriarch of two or three generations lives in a hamlet, with all his children and domestics around him. Two of the provisions in Sec. XXV. of the Code, seem to be designed for some such state of society; and the liability to underrate the males fit for public service, when a capitation tax was ordered, and to overrate the inmates of such a house, when the head of it might suppose he would thereby receive increased aid from government when calamity overtook him, are equally apparent. The door-tablet is also liable to mistake, and in shops and workhouses, where the clerks and workmen live and sleep on the premises, it is not known what kind of report of families the assessors make. On these important points our present information is imperfect, while the evident liability to serious error in the ultimate results makes one hesitate. The Chinese may have taken a census satisfactory for their purposes, showing the number of families, and the average in each; but the point of this objection is, that we do not know how the families are enumerated, and therefore are at fault in reckoning the individuals. The average of persons in a household is set down at five by the Chinese, and in England, in 1831, it was 4.7, but it is probably less than that in a thickly settled country, if every married couple and their children be taken as a family, whether living by themselves, or grouped in patriarchal hamlets.

No one doubts that the population is enormous, constituting by far the greatest assemblage of human beings using one speech ever congregated under one monarch. To the merchants and manufacturers of the West, the determination of this question is of some importance, and through them to their governments. The political economist and philologist, the naturalist and geographer, have also greater or less degrees of interest in the contemplation of such a people, inhabiting so beautiful and fertile a country. But the Christian philanthropist turns to the consideration of this subject with the liveliest solicitude; for if the weight of evidence is in favor of the highest estimate, he feels his responsibility increase to a painful degree. The danger to this people is furthermore greatly enhanced by the opium traffic—a trade which, as if the Rivers Phlegethon and Lethe were united in it, carries fire and destruction wherever it flows, and leaves a deadly forgetfulness wherever it has passed. Let these facts appeal to all calling themselves Christians, to send the antidote to this baleful drug, and diffuse a knowledge of the principles of the Gospel among them, thereby placing life as well as death before them.

If the population of the Empire is not easily ascertained, a satisfactory account of the public revenue and expenditures is still more difficult to obtain; it possesses far less interest, of course, in itself, and in such a country as China is subject to many variations. The market value of the grain, silk, and other products in which a large proportion of the taxes are paid, varies from year to year; and although this does not materially affect the government which receives these articles, it complicates the subject very much when attempting to ascertain the real taxation. Statistics on these subjects are only of recent date in Europe, and should not yet be looked for in China, drawn up with much regard to truth. The central government requires each province to support itself, and furnish a certain surplusage for the maintenance of the Emperor and his court; but it is well known that his Majesty is continually embarrassed for the want of funds, and that the provinces do not all supply enough revenue to meet their own outlays.

The amounts given by various authors as the revenue of China at different times, are so discordant, that a single glance shows that they were obtained from partial or incomplete returns, or else refer only to the surplusage sent to the capital. De Guignes remarks very truly, that the Chinese are so fully persuaded of the riches, power, and resources of their country, that a foreigner is likely to receive different accounts from every native he asks; but there appears to be no good reason why the government should falsify or abridge their fiscal accounts. In 1587, Trigault, one of the French missionaries, stated the revenue at only tls. 20,000,000. In 1655, Nieuhoff reckoned it at tls. 108,000,000. About twelve years after, Magalhaens gave the treasures of the Emperor at $20,423,962; and Le Comte, about the same time, placed the revenue at $22,000,000, and both of them estimated the receipts from rice, silk, etc, at $30,000,000, making the whole revenue previous to KanghÍ’s death, in 1721, between fifty and seventy millions of dollars. Barrow reckoned the receipts from all sources in 1796 at tls. 198,000,000, derived from a rough estimate given by the commissioner who accompanied the embassy. Sir George Staunton places the total sum at $330,000,000; of which $60,000,000 only were transmitted to Peking. Medhurst, drawing his information from original sources, thus states the principal items of the receipts:

The shih of rice is estimated at $3, but this does not include the cost of transportation to the capital.[162] At $200,000,000, the tax received by government from each person on an average is about sixty cents; Barrow estimates the capitation at about ninety cents. The account of the revenue in taels from each province given in the table of population on page 264, is extracted from the Red Book for 1840;[163] the account of the revenue in rice, as stated in the official documents for that year, is 4,114,000 shih, or about five hundred and fifty millions of pounds, calling each shih a pecul. The manner in which the various items of the revenue are divided is thus stated for Kwangtung, in the Red Book for 1842:

This is evidently only the sum sent to the capital from this province, ostensibly as the revenue, and which the provincial treasury must collect. The real receipts from this province or any other cannot well be ascertained by foreigners; it is, however, known, that in former years, the collector of customs at Canton was obliged to remit annually from eight hundred thousand to one million three hundred thousand taels, and the gross receipts of his office were not far from three millions of taels.[164] This was then the richest collectorate in the Empire; but since the foreign trade at the open ports has been placed under foreign supervision, the resources of the Empire have been better reported. A recent analysis of the sources of revenue in the Eighteen Provinces has been furnished by the customs service; it places them under different headings from the preceding list, though the total does not materially differ. Out of this whole amount the sum derived from the trade in foreign shipping goes most directly to the central exchequer.

De Guignes has examined the subject of the revenue with his usual caution, and bases his calculations on a proclamation of Kienlung in 1777, in which it was stated that the total income in bullion at that period was tls. 27,967,000.

The difference of about eighty millions of dollars between this amount and that given by Medhurst, will not surprise one who has looked into this perplexing matter. All these calculations are based on approximations, which, although easily made up, cannot be verified to our satisfaction; but all agree in placing the total amount of revenue below that of any European government in proportion to the population. In 1823, a paper was published by a graduate upon the fiscal condition of the country, in which he gave a careful analysis of the receipts and disbursements. P. P. Thoms translated it in detail, and summarized the former under three heads of taxes reckoned at tls. 33,327,056, rice sent to Peking 6,346,438, and supplies to army 7,227,360—in all tls. 46,900,854. Out of the first sum tls. 24,507,933 went to civilians and the army, leaving tls. 5,819,123 for the Peking government, and tls. 3,000,000 for the Yellow River repairs and Yuen-ming Palace. The resources of the Empire this writer foots up at tls. 74,461,633, or just one-half of what Medhurst gives. The extraordinary sources of revenue which are resorted to in time of war or bad harvests, are sale of office and honors, temporary increase of duties, and demands for contributions from wealthy merchants and landholders. The first is the most fruitful source, and may be regarded rather as a permanent than a temporary expediency employed to make up deficiencies. The mines of gold and silver, pearl fisheries in Manchuria and elsewhere, precious stones brought from ÍlÍ and Khoten, and other localities, furnish several millions.

The expenditures, almost every year, exceed the revenue, but how the deficit is supplied does not clearly appear; it has been sometimes drawn from the rich by force, at other times made good by paltering with the currency, as in 1852-55, and again by reducing rations and salaries. In 1832, the Emperor said the excess of disbursements was tls. 28,000,000;[165] and, in 1836, the defalcation was still greater, and offices and titles to the amount of tls. 10,000,000 were put up for sale to supply it. This deficiency has become more and more alarming since the drain of specie annually sent abroad in payment for opium has been increased by military exactions for suppressing the rebellion up to 1867. At that date the Empire began to recuperate. The principal items of the expenditure are thus stated by De Guignes: