Effects of Abolition of Feudalism on Agricultural Class—Changes in Land
Tenure—Land-Tax Revision.
The abolition of feudalism came as a boon to the peasantry. If it
inflicted much hardship on the _samurai_, who formed the bulk of the
military class, while the verdict as to its results in other cases
depended on the conclusion to be reached after balancing the gain and
loss attending its operation, to the farmers it was a veritable
blessing. Its full significance was, however, not felt until after the
lapse of several years.
Under the feudal system the position of the farmer varied to some extent
according to locality. In Satsuma, for instance, besides the ordinary
farming class, there were _samurai_ farmers. Again, in certain parts of
the province of Mito, and elsewhere, there was a special class of yeoman
farmers who enjoyed some of the privileges of the _samurai_. But
throughout the country generally the bulk of the agricultural class
consisted of peasant farmers, who, while cultivating their land on
conditions similar to what is known in Europe as the _métayage_ system,
were in many respects little better than serfs. The peasant farmer could
not leave his holding, and go elsewhere, as he pleased; nor could he
dispose of his interest in it, though by means of mortgages it was
possible to evade the law in this respect. To the frequent call for
forced labour he was obliged to respond. He was subject to restrictions
in regard to the crops to be cultivated, and their rotation, while in
the disposal of his produce he was hampered by the interference of clan
guilds. The farmer had also to bear the expense and risk of conveying
the tax-produce of his land to the receiving stations, besides being
obliged to deliver on each occasion an extra amount to cover the loss
supposed to occur in its transportation. On the other hand, though under
the feudal form of land tenure he was tied to the soil and transferable
with it when it changed hands, he was practically free from disturbance
in his holding so long as he paid his rent, which took the form of a
share of the produce of the land, and other imposts exacted from time to
time by feudal bailiffs. Fixity of tenure, therefore, he certainly
enjoyed; and, looking at the peculiar nature of his association with the
feudal landlord, it seems questionable whether his rights in the land he
cultivated may not be regarded as having much of the character of
ownership. Holdings, it may be added, descended from father to son, or,
failing direct heirs, in the same family, the right of adoption being,
of course, recognized.
The interests of the peasantry were affected in many ways by the
abolition of the feudal system. The abrupt change in the position of the
cultivator caused by the disappearance of his feudal landlord opened up
the whole question of land tenure and land taxation, not only as it
affected the peasant cultivator, but in its bearing on the occupiers of
all agricultural land throughout the country, as well as other land not
included in this category. To enable the Government to cope with a task
of this magnitude, and at the same time to carry out their declared aims
in the direction of uniformity of administration, far-reaching
legislation was necessary.
In view of the singular character of the feudal tenure we have
described, under which landlord and tenant were associated in a kind of
joint ownership, it might have been supposed that advantage would be
taken of the opportunity offered by the surrender of fiefs to place the
question of land tenure on a clear footing by defining accurately the
position of the people, and more especially the cultivators, with regard
to the land. This, however, was not done. No Decree affecting the broad
issue raised by the abolition of the feudal system was promulgated. It
was only by degrees that the intentions of the Government became
apparent. Step by step the policy in view was manifested by the removal
of the various restrictions which had curtailed the tenants’ rights,
until at length it became clear that, while retaining the theory that
the ownership of all land was vested as of right in the Crown, the
intention was that each occupier of land should become virtually the
proprietor of his holding.
One of the first acts of the Government at the end of the civil war had
been to place all land as far as possible on a common footing, the
earliest step in this direction being taken in the spring of 1869. It
was then enacted that all land held in grant from previous governments
should be liable to taxation. This measure affected all grantees of
land, the _yashikis_, or feudal residences of the territorial nobility
in Yedo, coming under the new rule. The ground covered by these
_yashikis_, some of which were extensive, forming separate parks in the
neighbourhood of the castle and in other quarters of the city, had
originally, like other grants of land, been handed over in free gift,
neither rent nor land-tax being paid.
An essential point in the uniformity of administration contemplated by
the new Government was the reform of all taxation, precedence being
given to the revision of the land-tax. No hesitation was shown in taking
up this task. Finance was the weak point in the administrative
situation, as it had been that of the previous Government; and land
having since early days been the main source of revenue, it was natural
that the question of the land-tax should be the first to receive
attention. Before the abolition of feudalism, and while the clans still
retained their own provincial administration, it was not possible to
take practical steps towards fiscal changes that should apply to all
parts of the country. But the movement in favour of the surrender of
feudal fiefs had begun almost as soon as the triumph of the Imperialist
forces was assured, and by the time the feudal system was abolished by
the Decree of August, 1871, the subject had been examined by the new
Government in all its bearings, and the shape which the revision of the
land-tax should take had been determined. It was, therefore, possible
for a complete scheme of revision to be brought forward by the Finance
Department before the end of the same year, that is to say, within four
months after the disappearance of the clans.
Before dwelling on the main features of this proposal, for which Marquis
Ōkuma and Marquis Inouyé, then Minister and Vice-Minister of Finance
respectively, and Baron Kanda, an authority on all questions of
administration, were mainly responsible, it may be well to glance for a
moment at the previous system of land taxation in order that a clear
idea of the changes introduced may be formed.
Put shortly, the position of holders of land in regard to taxation in
the last days of Tokugawa rule was this. Only land under cultivation was
taxed. The land-tax was payable everywhere in rice, whatever the crop
cultivated might be, and was based on the assessed yield of the land.
But the methods of estimating this yield varied greatly. In one place
this would be done by taking the measurement of the land bearing the
crop; in another the appearance and condition of the crop would be the
decisive factors; while in a third there would be “assessment by
sample,” as it was called, specimens of the growing crop being selected
for the purpose. The land measures, too, were not everywhere the same.
Moreover, the principle which governed the distribution of the produce
of the land between the cultivator and the landlord—the latter’s share
being, in effect, the former’s land-tax—varied in different provinces,
and in different districts of the same province. In some places
seven-tenths of the yield of land went to the landlord, and three-tenths
to the cultivator; in others these proportions were reversed; there were
districts, such as the Shōgun’s domains, where the cultivator received
three-fifths, and other, again, where the proportions were equal. There
was a general resemblance, dating back to the time of the Great Reform,
between the taxation systems in force throughout the country. The old
classification, under which there were three main heads of taxation, the
land-tax, the industrial-tax and forced labour—all payable by the
cultivator—was retained everywhere in a modified form. But each clan
went its own way in other respects, having its own methods of assessment
and collection, as well as its own rules of exemption from, and
remission of, taxation. Except in the Shōgun’s domains, where matters,
generally, were regulated on a somewhat better basis than elsewhere,
there was no very definite distinction between central and local
taxation; and, whether it was a clan or the Shōgunate itself to which
taxes were due, there was a constant liability to irregular exactions
imposed at the pleasure of the authorities.
The main features of the new scheme show the importance of the changes
proposed.
A new official survey of land throughout the country was to be carried
out. Title-deeds were to be issued for all land, whether cultivated or
not. Land everywhere was to be valued, and the value stated in the
title-deed. In the case of cultivated land the land-tax was to be made
payable in money, instead of in rice, as before, and was to be based on
the selling value of the land, as declared in the title-deed, and not,
as before, on the assessed yield of the holding. The proprietor—for
this, in effect, the farmer became when the revision was
accomplished—was to be free to cultivate his land in all respects as he
pleased, and could sell or otherwise dispose of it as he chose.
The _Sei-in_—that curious body in the reorganized Government of 1869
which represented an attempt to combine in one branch of authority
legislative, deliberative and executive powers—signified its approval of
the scheme, and arrangements were made to give effect to some of its
provisions. In January, 1872, as a tentative measure, title-deed
regulations were issued. These were made operative at first only in the
Tōkiō prefecture, but their operation was gradually extended to other
places. Shortly afterwards further regulations providing for the annual
payment of land-tax at the rate of 2 per cent on the value of land, as
entered in the title-deed, were published. And in March of the same year
the restrictions on the alienation of land, which had previously
prevented all transfers of land between the military class and other
classes of the people, as well as between members of the latter, were
removed.
Before, however, this scheme for the revision of the land-tax assumed
its final legislative shape it underwent various modifications. It was
submitted early in 1873 to a conference of the chief administrative
officials in the provinces which took place in the Capital. The
necessity of reform on the lines suggested was admitted by all
concerned. The main point on which opinions differed was whether the
revision of the land-tax should be carried out as soon as possible, or
gradually. The advocates of prompt action urged that the question should
be dealt with quickly and decisively, arguing that whatever
disadvantages might attend this course would be more than
counterbalanced by the benefits resulting from a uniform system of
taxation. The other side held that it would be unwise to do away
suddenly with old customs and usages, and that it would be better to
carry out the contemplated changes very gradually, taking care not to
offend local prejudice. In the end the views of the advocates of prompt
action prevailed, and a draft law was prepared. This, having received
the sanction of the Throne, was notified to the country by Imperial
Decree in July of the same year. No direct reference was made in the
Decree either to the change of government, or to the abolition of
feudalism, which were the real causes that had inspired the measure. It
may have been thought inadvisable to refer to a past so full of
dangerous memories, and so recent as to invite inconvenient comparisons.
The Decree itself merely stated the object of the measure, which was “to
remedy the existing harsh and unequal incidence of taxation,” and the
fact that local authorities, besides other officials, had been consulted
in its preparation. In the notification accompanying it further
information was given. It was explained that the old system of paying
taxes on cultivated land in rice was abolished; that as soon as fresh
title-deeds had been prepared land-tax would be paid at the rate of 3
per cent on the value of the land; and that the same course would be
followed in the case of local land taxation, with the proviso that the
local land rate should not exceed one-third of the Imperial land-tax.
By a looseness of wording, which may have escaped notice at the time,
both the Decree and the Notification spoke of the land-tax as having
been revised. It needed more than a stroke of the pen to do this.
Neither those who in the conference objected to hasty measures, nor
those who were in favour of prompt action, had foreseen the length of
time that would be occupied in the execution of the reform. It was left
to the practical exigencies of the situation to effect a compromise
between the two parties which the conference had failed to bring about.
The original estimate of the time needed to carry out the measure was
found to be quite inadequate. Though the task was set about at once,
several years elapsed before it was completed; and eventually it was
decided to allow the new scheme to come into operation in each district,
as soon as the requisite arrangements had been made, without waiting for
its adoption in other places.
Voluminous regulations were appended to the Notification. In one of
these a promise was given that the rate of land-tax would be reduced to
1 per cent whenever the total annual revenue from other sources should
have reached the sum of _Yen_ 2,000,000 (£400,000). This promise was
never fulfilled. By the time the revenue from other sources had reached
the amount stated the needs of the new Government had so outgrown its
resources that reduction to the extent contemplated was not possible. A
reduction from 3 to 2½ per cent was, however, made a few years later,
while the work of revision was still proceeding.
Some other points may be noted in passing which throw light on the
principles underlying the measure.
All holders of land were required to remeasure it, and furnish a
statement of its value. These estimates were then to be checked by
comparison with similar estimates made by official experts. In the case
of a holder of land refusing to agree to the value fixed by the
assessors, the land was to be sold.
The land-tax of 3 per cent was to be levied only on cultivated land,
this category including both rice land and other arable land. The tax on
house land was higher, while that on other classes of land, such as land
covered by forests, pasture or moorland, was almost nominal.
The plan adopted, wherever possible, in fixing the value of land in a
district was to take a certain village as a specimen, and, having fixed
the value of the land in it, to make that value the basis for
determining the value of all other land in the district, the guiding
principle being to ascertain the actual profit it yielded to the
cultivator. With this principle in view, the method employed for
determining the value of cultivated land was as follows: Land was first
of all divided into two classes, rice land, and land on which other
crops were grown. The official assessors having, with the assistance of
the cultivator, estimated the annual yield of the holding, this yield
was, in the case of rice, wheat and beans, converted into money by
taking the average market price per _koku_ (about five bushels) of each
of these articles of produce for the five years 1870–4 inclusive. In
fixing this average market price it would have been impossible to have
taken one price for the whole country, since the prices of all staple
articles varied in many districts. The difficulty was, therefore, met by
fixing several market values, to be used as the separate bases of
valuation wherever local conditions and circumstances required special
consideration. Thus in some cases one market price for rice, or for
wheat, was made the basis for valuing land in a whole province; whereas
in other cases separate market prices had to be determined for
particular districts, or even villages. In the case of land on which
other produce, such as tea, silk, hemp and indigo, etc., was grown, the
method adopted was to estimate what crops of wheat, or beans, land of
the same kind in the same place yielded. This yield was then taken as
that of the land in question, and converted into money in the usual way.
Up to this point the method followed was the same for all land, whether
a man cultivated his own holding, or held it on lease from the
proprietor. In the former case the next step in the process of fixing
land values was to deduct from the total value of the yield of the land
15 per cent, as cost of seed and manure. From the sum that remained the
land-tax and local taxes were again deducted, as well as the cost of
wages, if these were paid, for labour employed. The balance remaining
over was taken to represent the net value of the yield of the land. And,
as the Government decided to regard 6 per cent as the average rate of
profit accruing to a cultivator, the value of a holding was determined
by a simple calculation. This value, so determined, became the assessed
or taxable value of the land, and on this the land-tax was levied. The
process by which the value was arrived at in the case of a cultivator
who held his land on lease was a little more complicated. Stated in
other words, the taxable value of cultivated land, as determined by the
revision, was in all cases the net value of its yield to the cultivator,
whether the latter was owner, or only tenant.
To the question of the periods of payment of the land-tax much attention
was given. The three instalments in which it was at first made payable
were afterwards reduced to two, the dates of payment varying according
to the nature of the crop cultivated. It should be noted, also, that in
making the revised land-tax uniform throughout the country an exception
was introduced in favour of Yezo, or the Hokkaidō, to give it its
administrative name. There, in order to encourage the development of
what was then the northernmost island, the rate of tax was fixed at 1
per cent.
Four years after the work of revision had begun the land-tax was, as
already stated, reduced to 2½ per cent. In the Decree announcing this
reduction allusion was made to the growing needs of the country, which
had not yet been able, it was said, to adjust itself to the changed
conditions brought about by the Restoration, and to the distress still
prevailing amongst the agricultural classes. The apparent slowness with
which the work of revision proceeded was brought to the notice of the
local authorities by the Government, and the year 1876 was fixed as the
date by which the revision must be concluded. Neither that year,
however, nor the next saw the end of the undertaking. It lasted five
years longer, being eventually completed in 1881.
[Illustration:
MARQUIS INOUYÉ.
Took an active part in the Government formed after the Restoration,
and was an outstanding figure in Foreign as well as Financial
affairs.
]
[Illustration:
MARQUIS ŌKUMA.
Was prominent in the formation of the new Government subsequent to the
Restoration; was for some time in Opposition, returning to the
Ministry later. Conspicuous as an advocate of constitutional
government, as an author, and as an educationalist, he was the most
versatile of all the statesmen of his day.
]
By a very rough computation, which is all that the unreliability of
statistics in those days will permit, the extent of taxable land
occupied, or owned, by the people previous to the revision may be
estimated at about ten million acres. As the result of the revision this
area was more than quadrupled. On the other hand, the revenue derived
from the land showed a falling off of 5 per cent. This result is
explained by the fact that some of the land had before been over-taxed,
while a large portion of the new taxable area consisted of uncultivated
land paying only a nominal tax, and, therefore, contributing little to
the revenue.
The total cost of the revision of the land-tax, according to official
estimates, was about £7,500,000. Of this sum about £6,000,000 were
repaid by the people, the balance being defrayed by the provincial
authorities, with the exception of an item of some £100,000 which was
charged to the central government. Heavy as this expense was, the gain
to Japan would have justified a greater cost. For the first time in her
history there was one uniform system of land taxation for the whole
country, and, with the exception above mentioned, one uniform rate.
Since the completion of the task of revision the system of land taxation
has _in its main features_ remained unchanged. But the heavy expenditure
entailed by the Russo-Japanese war in 1904–5 made it necessary for the
Government to increase taxation of all kinds. Special war taxes were
then imposed. Amongst these was an additional land-tax. When the war
came to an end this additional tax was retained, as was the case with
our own income-tax, and the Chinese transit tax on commodities
(_lekin_), both of which were also originally war taxes.
A feature to be noted in connection with this land reform is the change
that was made in the title to land. Hitherto the registration of land in
the local land register, in accordance with the practice of centuries,
as well as entries regarding the transfer of land recorded in the same
land register, had constituted the holder’s title. Henceforth the title
to land was determined by the possession of a title-deed. The new
system, however, did not come to stay. After a trial of over fifteen
years it was abandoned in March, 1889, in favour of the old method of
registration in the land books of a district which, with certain later
modifications in matters of detail, is now in force.
The reclassification of land—one of the results of the land reform—was
set forth in an elaborate schedule, into the details of which it is
unnecessary to enter. A reference to the various classes into which land
was divided establishes two facts:
1. All cultivated land, with a few exceptions, belongs to the people.
2. All waste land, with a few exceptions, belongs to the Government.
To these we may add a third, that all land in Japan is subject to
land-tax, with three exceptions:
(_a_) Government land.
(_b_) Land held for religious purposes.
(_c_) Land used for purposes of irrigation, drainage, and roads.