in families are to have twenty-five acres. On occasion of death or of removal, there is no going out of the district. In the fields of a district those of each group of nine are friends to one another in going out and coming in; they help one another, guarding and watching, and supporting one another in sickness. The people thus live in mutual harmony. A square li makes nine squares. A group of nine covers nine hundred acres. The centre is the public field, eight families have each one hundred acres of their own. They cultivate together the public field. When the public work is finished, then they first venture to attend to their private affairs. This is the way the countrymen are distinguished from savages. This is an outline, the actual achievement of which rests with the sovereign and you, sir.'" It appears that by the socage system two and a half acres were allotted to each family for buildings and garden, although they only had to cultivate ten acres instead of taxes. This was the tenth of the hundred. In the share system one hundred and twelve and a half acres came to each family, of which they had to give up the produce of twelve and a half, which is oneninth. The difference consists in the two and a half acres for house and garden, which, mentioned in the commentary, here escapes memory. This, however, is only a feint to help on the somewhat lame system proposed by Mencius. According to another statement, the people held of the best fields one hundred acres; of medium, two hundred acres; of bad, three hundred. The good field lay one year fallow, the medium two years, the bad three years. The exchange of workers took place every three years, so that in three years the three kinds of fields were managed by each peasant. Of the second and third kind there were only one hundred acres cultivated, so that the remainder lay fallow, and the piece cultivated this year lay fallow next year. Mencius clearly shows by his preference for the socage system that he had an ideal social existence in his mind. He would, as is shown in the text, bind to gether the families in closer bonds, that each should not exist for itself, but cultivate a spirit of union. It might have been foreseen that such constraint would cause dissensions. In public works in general there is unhappily a tendency to magnify one's own power as much as possible. Only under very primitive circumstances is the socage system practicable, or upon special occasions when the spirit of common action is strongly aroused, and a unique demand arises for speedy assistance. But it cannot long continue, still less assume a permanent form. If the corresponding means of exchange are ready, and there be no lack of workers, it is better for every Government to receive for the labour its value in products of other labour or an equivalent in gold, than to provide for its own requirements free labour. Thus both parties are served. Mencius having chosen the worst out of three previous systems is a sign that he was not a great economist, and was also a novice in social politics. 439. The doubling of taxes, "taking one-fifth" instead of one-tenth, is strongly condemned (p. 181). (Cf. Art. 487.) Of three kinds of taxes, only one at a time is permissible (p. 367). "There are taxes of linen and silks, a tax on grain, a tax on labour. The superior man uses one of these and leaves the other two; if he demand two of them, the people will suffer from want; if he exacts the three, then father and son are separated (ie., families cannot exist)." Mencius is always considering how the people may be protected from the exactions of extravagant despots. These three kinds of taxes were all paid by the same people, the peasants. But the taxing of only one article would certainly prejudice its production, if others found sufficient demand, especially in the neighbouring states. An equable partition of tenths, or a tax in lieu thereof, would have answered far better, or even Mencius's pet plan of socage. 440. Market taxes, &c.. (p. 75). "Mencius said, 'Is there a ground-rent to be paid in the market without a tax on goods, or inspection without any rent? all the merchants in the empire will be delighted, and desire to have a store in the market. If at the passes there is an inspecsion of persons without taxes, all travellers will be pleased and wish to pass over those roads. If the husbandmen give socage service but no taxes, then all the peasants of the empire will rejoice and desire to plough in those fields. If there be only ground-rent, but not poll or house tax, then all the people of the empire will rejoice and wish to be his subjects." The Commentary in the Chow-li remarks, "that in markets and towns rooms were taxed according to size. Taxes on dwellings were first introduced in a time of national decay. Many princes exacted socage from the public field and a tithe from the private fields also. Houses without a plantation of mulberry-trees in the garden had to pay the tax on dwellings, and people without occupation the poll-tax." Mencius was disinclined to complicated systems of taxes, but in doing away with the misuse he rejected much that was good. The tithe was unjust as soon as it had to be taken from one's personal requirements. Mencius supposes that every one has first provided for his necessity. This may be in the simple relations of a thinly peopled state, but not in modern times, when foreign commercial relations are important factors in questions of taxation. 441. Customs duties to be abolished (p. 357). "Of old there were frontier posts to guard against violence; now they have frontier posts to exercise violence." Every one is agreed that frontier duties, not to speak of inland taxes between one district and another, as is now the custom in China, are an inconvenience to travellers and a great hindrance to commerce. Unhappily neither the wisdom of China nor of the West has been able to devise means for abolishing them; that is to say, nothing has been found to take their place. It is also necessary that the abolition of these be simultaneous and universal. The state which precedes others in this path will suffer serious financial injury, of which foreigners reap the advantage. Antiquity is no argument in such things for our days, seeing that the principle could not be unconditionally applied in the time of Mencius. (Cf. Arts. 166, 437, 440.) 442. Marshes and ponds ought to be kept common (p. 38). "The management of affairs by King Wan in K'e was of old thus: the peasants gave a ninth as a tax, the officials had hereditary revenues, at the markets and passes there was inspection without duties, the use of marshes and weirs was unrestricted, criminals were not punished in their wives and children." The weirs served to form ponds for preserving fish. We may conclude that in the time of Mencius the princes knew how to keep the fishing for themselves. In China of to-day it is free, and is carried on with energy. 443. The leading principle is that true wealth does not consist in gold and silver (p. 368). "Mencius said, 'The prince has three kinds of most precious things—the land, the people, the business of governing. He who counts pearls and jewels as the most precious, calamity will overtake him." Whilst true in the first place of the private enrichment of princes, this is an important lesson to finance ministers in regard to national economy. The accumulation of gold will not give a country or a monarch superiority over others; but the best management of the useful products of the land, the advancement of morality and intelligence amongst the people, with enlightened and liberal government. Where these prevail, there is no danger from within or without. Mere monetary wealth soon brings trouble. A curious account is given of the origin of taxes (p. 104), in which is indicated the idea that the greed of sharp traders led to their imposition. CHAPTER II. NATIONAL EDUCATION: ITS THEORY, SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, METHOD, AND MUSIC. (a.) Theory. 444. MORAL culture as well as physical is indispensable to the state (p. 127). "There is a way with men; enough to eat, warm clothing, comfortable residences, without education, makes them like beasts." This tendency unhappily shows itself in many so-called scholars, whose education has lacked the moral element. The culture of the intellect and the acquisition of information cannot supply this deficiency. Simple material prosperity cannot long continue in a state unless moral purity and truth are widespread amongst the people. 445. Education is not a suppression but a drawing out (p. 199).1 "Mencius said, 'He who seeks to subjugate men by goodness will never succeed in subjugating them. He who educates them by goodness will bring the whole realm into subjection. If the hearts of all in the whole realm be not subjugated, the imperial power is unattainable." The Government must always have the power to legislate in favour of what is good, but it is to its interest very rarely to exercise this power. The more other factors work to this end, to which the people voluntarily listen, the deeper will strike the roots of the authority of Govern 1 This seems a parallel to a very common saying, "You cannot make men virtuous by Acts of Parliament." Moral suasion alone will produce real goodness. External virtue, though convenient to society, is destructive to the individual, making him a whited sepulchre.' 66 |