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.
Chihlí58,9494753,260,0753,274,8709,374,21727,990,87138,000,00015,222,94016,702,76528,000,0003,942,000
Shantung65,104444.........2,278,59512,769,87228,958,76424,000,00025,180,73412,159,68029,000,0006,344,000
Shansí55,2682521,792,3291,727,1445,162,35114,004,21027,000,0009,768,1898,969,47517,056,9256,313,000
Honan65,1044202,005,0883,094,1507,114,34623,037,17125,000,00016,332,50712,637,28029,069,7715,651,000
Kiangsu44,5008503,917,7072,656,46512,618,98737,843,50132,000,00023,161,40926,766,36537,800,00011,733,000
Nganhwui48,4617051,350,1311,357,82912,435,36134,168,05922,761,03034,200,000
Kiangsí72,1763205,528,4992,172,5875,055,25123,046,99919,000,00011,006,6406,681,35023,000,0003,744,000
Chehkiang39,1506712,710,6492,710,3128,662,80826,256,78421,000,00015,429,69015,623,99026,300,0005,856,000
Fuhkien53,4802761,468,145706,3114,710,39914,777,41015,000,0008,063,6717,643,03514,800,0002,344,000
Hupeh70,450389469,927433,9434,568,86027,370,09814,000,0008,080,6034,264,85027,400,0002,091,000
Hunan74,320251375,782335,0344,336,33218,652,50713,000,0008,829,32020,048,9691,905,000
Shensí67,400153240,8092,150,6963,851,04310,207,25618,000,0007,287,44314,804,03510,309,7693,042,000
Kansuh86,608175311,972368,5252,133,22215,193,12512,000,0007,812,0149,285,377563,000
Sz’chuen166,800128144,1543,802,6891,368,49621,435,67827,000,0002,782,97615,181,71035,000,0002,968,000
Kwangtung79,4562411,148,9181,142,7473,969,24819,174,03021,000,0006,797,5976,006,60019,200,000193,000
Kwangsí78,25093205,995210,6741,975,6197,313,89510,000,0003,947,4141,143,4508,121,327794,000
Kweichau64,5548251,08937,7311,718,8485,288,2199,000,0003,402,722255,4455,679,128185,000
Yunnan107,969512,255,666145,4141,003,0585,561,3208,000,0002,078,8021,189,8255,823,670432,000
Shingking.........4,194.......221,7422,167,286.........668,852235,620................
1,297,99926827,241,12928,605,716103,050,060362,447,183333,000,000198,214,553150,265,475380,000,00058,097,000
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.
Chihlí58,9494753,260,0753,274,8709,374,21727,990,871
Shantung65,104444.........2,278,59512,769,87228,958,764
Shansí55,2682521,792,3291,727,1445,162,35114,004,210
Honan65,1044202,005,0883,094,1507,114,34623,037,171
Kiangsu44,5008503,917,7072,656,46512,618,98737,843,501
Nganhwui48,4617051,350,1311,357,82912,435,36134,168,059
Kiangsí72,1763205,528,4992,172,5875,055,25123,046,999
Chehkiang39,1506712,710,6492,710,3128,662,80826,256,784
Fuhkien53,4802761,468,145706,3114,710,39914,777,410
Hupeh70,450389469,927433,9434,568,86027,370,098
Hunan74,320251375,782335,0344,336,33218,652,507
Shensí67,400153240,8092,150,6963,851,04310,207,256
Kansuh86,608175311,972368,5252,133,22215,193,125
Sz’chuen166,800128144,1543,802,6891,368,49621,435,678
Kwangtung79,4562411,148,9181,142,7473,969,24819,174,030
Kwangsí78,25093205,995210,6741,975,6197,313,895
Kweichau64,5548251,08937,7311,718,8485,288,219
Yunnan107,969512,255,666145,4141,003,0585,561,320
Shingking.........4,194.......221,7422,167,286
1,297,99926827,241,12928,605,716103,050,060362,447,183
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.
38,000,00015,222,94016,702,76528,000,0003,942,000
24,000,00025,180,73412,159,68029,000,0006,344,000
27,000,0009,768,1898,969,47517,056,9256,313,000
25,000,00016,332,50712,637,28029,069,7715,651,000
32,000,00023,161,40926,766,36537,800,00011,733,000
22,761,03034,200,000
19,000,00011,006,6406,681,35023,000,0003,744,000
21,000,00015,429,69015,623,99026,300,0005,856,000
15,000,0008,063,6717,643,03514,800,0002,344,000
14,000,0008,080,6034,264,85027,400,0002,091,000
13,000,0008,829,32020,048,9691,905,000
18,000,0007,287,44314,804,03510,309,7693,042,000
12,000,0007,812,0149,285,377563,000
27,000,0002,782,97615,181,71035,000,0002,968,000
21,000,0006,797,5976,006,60019,200,000193,000
10,000,0003,947,4141,143,4508,121,327794,000
9,000,0003,402,722255,4455,679,128185,000
8,000,0002,078,8021,189,8255,823,670432,000
.........668,852235,620................
333,000,000198,214,553150,265,475380,000,00058,097,000

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.