隘糧與大租：清代竹塹地區合興莊的隘墾事業與閩粵關係

Rent and Land Rights: The Relation of Fujian and Guangdong and the Guard Posts System in He Xing Village of the Zhu Qian Area in the Qing Dynasty

目前對於清代閩粵族群關係的詮釋，主要是由土地開發過程來說明閩籍業主與粵籍佃人之間的競爭與合作關係。但要從土地開發過程來理解閩粵族群的互動，就必須考慮到土地制度的特色。例如，乾隆 55 年（ 1790）後淺山丘陵的土地開發，相較 18 世紀的開墾制度就多了一層設隘防衛的設計，即佃人除了繳納大租給業主以外，還須另行貼納隘糧來作為隘防的經費。所以要從隘墾制度來探討閩粵族群關係，就必須理解閩粵族群在隘墾制度中具體扮演的角色。由於目前的研究多由 18 世紀的墾戶制度來思考淺山丘陵的開發，將墾戶視為最上層的領導者，將管理隘丁的隘首視為從屬於墾戶的僱員，故將隘糧與大租合併討論，或逕稱隘糧大租，將兩者視為同一項目。但筆者發現隘糧與大租兩者在文獻上其實是不同的書寫方式，大租往往是以定額的方式，被印刷在固定的契約格式上；隘糧卻是以另行添寫的方式出現在文獻之中。因此本文首先指出這兩種不同書寫方式，背後反映出合興莊的大租係由墾戶支配，與隘防事業無直接關聯且多為定額。至於隘防事業的經費來源，即隘糧，則由地方佃戶所組成的隘首支配，並採彈性方式徵收。顯然，隘墾制度實際的運作情形，墾戶所扮演的地位並非單純的土地開發主導者，可能還包括其他的產業活動，故本文接著指出，墾戶建立墾莊的收益來源，很可能還包括墾莊及周遭地區的商業流通。

Today, the ethnic relations in Fujian and Guangdong during the Qing Dynasty are mainly interpreted in relation to the competitive and collaborative relationship between the ethnic groups of Fujian land owners and uangdong tenants during the process of land development. However, the land system must also be taken into account if the interaction between these two ethnic groups during the process of land development is to be understood. In comparison with the land development system in the 18th century, in the 55th year of Emperor Qianglong’s reign (1790) there was an additional guard post system situated at the rear of the hilly Qian Shan region. That meant that the tenants not only needed to pay rent to the land owners, but were also required to contribute their harvest as a form of payment for the defense of the strategic pass. Therefore, the specifi roles played by the ethnic groups of Fujian and Guangdong must be understood before we explore their ethnic relations from the perspective of the tenant’s land and strategic pass development system. As current study is mostly based on the understanding of the develop-ment of the Qian Shan region in accordance with the land-owner system in the 18th century, when land owners were top of the hierarchy, with those in charge of managing the guards being regarded as the employees of the land owners. The tenants’ harvest (Ai Liang) and rent (Da zu) relating to the strategic pass are counted as one item and studied together. However, the author also fids that the tenants’ harvest/additional tax (Ai Liang) and rent (Da zu) were in fact written in different formats. The rent (Da zu) was usually a fied amount and printed on a fied contract template, whereas the tenants’ harvest/additional tax (Ai Liang) appeared on documentation as a supplementary charge. These two different ways of writing imply that the land system of the Qian Shan hilly region dealt with Da zu and Ai Liang as separate items and this understanding enables our further understanding of the actual operational practices of the tenant’s land and guard posts system.