Some Notes on the Contracting Reclaimed Rice-Field of the Trading Class

Some fundamental matters are to be reported here an the contracting reclaimed rice-field of the trading class. They are the following three points:<br>(1) The relatian between the productivity of the reclaimed rice-field and kokumori i.e. the estimated crop according to which the landtax was collected (2) Composition of population in villages of the reclaimed rice-field (3) Gains brought about by the reclamation and development of rice-field, in other words, the reason why the contracting reclaimed rice-field of the trading class increased about the middle of modern times.<br>(1) It is said that kokumori, the estimated harvest as the standard for collecting the land-tax, was generally 80 per cent of the producing capacity of land in the early years of modern times, and 100 per cent about the middle of modern times. As to the contracting reclaimed rice-field, kokumari is computed to have been 110-130 per cent of the productivity. This is because of the fact that the actual area of the rice-field corresponded to be 1.8 times as large as the square measure made public. Consequently, it follows that kokumori was 80 per cent of the productivity at the best reclaimed rice-field, and 61 per cent at the most inferior field. The landowners of these rice-fields paid the land-tax in proportion to their respective square measure made public, while they collected rent paid in rice accoding to the actual area. Consequently, the balance was a profit for the landowners. An increase of the productivity made the balance between an annual tribute and harvest wider, and rent paid in rice was collected as much as the balance. In general, this is regarded as the reason why the contracting reclaimed rice-field appeared in succession, though in reality this is not often the case.<br>(2) The population of newly reclaimed villages was composed of a mi nority of immigrated farmers and a majority of tenant-farmers coming for work from other areas. The ratio between the immigrated farmers and the tenant-farmers depended upon the degree how far the farming population in existing villages was divided into extremes from a viewpoint of the social scale, namely, the higher classes and the lower classes, leaving only a small number in the middle classes. Requiring a large number of the tenant-farmers coming for work from other areas, the reclamation and developmnent of rice-field temporarily delayed the above-mentioned process of farmers going to the extreme social standings.<br>(3) Feudal clans remitted the landlords of the reclaimed rice-field the land-tax for twelve years. The latter still requested twelve years' prolongation of the term, which was granted. It seems that this was the period for repaying the amount with interest added of the expenses costed by the reclamation and development of rice-field. The annual interest was 8 per cent. The incomings and outcomings of the reclaimed rice-field usually brought about a profit of 10 per cent yearly. The annual interest for a loan to feudal lords was 5 per cent in those days, the higher rate of interest being 10 per cent annually; which was, however, often in danger of remaining unpaid. Therefore, the reclamation and development of rice-field was a sound and profitable enterprise for the trading class about the middle of modern times.