淸初の包攬 : 私徴體制の確立、解禁から請負徴視制へ

Abstract

The expression pao-lan originally denoted a governmental practice of tax assessment by proxy, but later its meaning changed to designate a practice of contract tax collection. In the early Ch'ing pao-lan in the former sense developed in stages : the sheltered stage ((a) pao-hsieh 保歇 type); the pressure for tax payment stage ((b) ching-ts'ui 經催 type and (c) tso-ch'ai 坐差 type) ; the tax collection stage ((d) p'an-chu ts'ang-ch'ang 盤居倉場 type); and the budgeting stage((e) kung-ting tzu-hu 供丁子戸 type) (see Chart 1). The distinctive feature which these five types shared in common was that, as pao-lan cliques was developed and pao-lan was systematized, and as property rights were established and pao-lan became professionalized, tax payment outside of pao-lan became virtually impossible. In particular, in the kung-ting tzu-hu type, established "landlord (地主) -tenant farmer (佃戸)" relations were dissolved while "local gentry (郷紳) -middle/small landlord" and "local gentry-tenant farmer" relations were formed ； a reorganization of feudalism aimed at territorial control was in the offing. If we examine the lever by which private pao-lan taxes were collected, we will see that it was possible to levy taxes as one wished because of the deficiencies in the tax rolls and land registers themselves. Furthermore, because a secure nucleus of private tax collection was formed by "hsu-li 胥吏 in the broader sense" (e.g. pang-i 幫役 and li-shu 里書) who were non-government men in principle, the practice of private tax levying was stabilized. What offset any political risk in this private taxation apparatus was, first, that the local gentry had the special privilege of being immune to arrest and, secondly, the role played by the distance (due to shifts of balance) between the lower levels of the local gentry and the tax levying nucleus. It was at this point that private pao-lan tax assessment was in fact established as a system ； and higher level gentry, gentry landlords, and rice merchants managed this system from the shadows. Soon after the establishment of the ti-ting-yin 地丁銀 in 1733-35 the ban on private pao-lan tax levying was actually lifted. This was unavoidable : primarily because of the general opinion of hsun-fu 巡撫 and tsung-tu 總督 who sought to secure private bao-lan tax assessment ; and, secondarily, because if for middle to small landlords all the way down to tenant farmers, in particular, the objects of tax assessment were not specified, tax collection would not take place. Immediately after the ban was lifted, pao-chiao 包交 (proxy tax assessment in bulk) prevailed, and a contract tax system was established in which vouchers were purchased in advance. Here, for example, as the existence of ts'ao-kuei 漕規(fees charged for tax collection advice) which the local gentry accepted from prefectural magistrates became apparent, the power of private parties surpassed that of the nation ； and the power of the local gentry as well as that of the merchants took form. The diffusion soon thereafter of the system of contract pao-lan into all divisions of societal specialization and the emergence of a semi-feudal, semi-colonial nation were probably historically inevitable.