Liu Yinglei Measures the Fields and Removes the Flying Grain, 1571

Background

In 1569 the gazetteer records that the single-whip method was memorialised, and that the river police office at Xujiabu was abolished. With the new method the actual area of fields became the basis for corvée and grain quotas; the problem of inaccurate areas and uneven burdens had been created by practices of the "flying grain" kind. The gazetteer does not explain what flying grain was, recording it only as the abuse that Liu Yinglei removed.

What was done

五年辛未，知县刘应雷丈量田亩甚明，并却飞粮四千余石，永除民害。民深德之，刘死，立祠祀焉。详《传》并《祠记》。 — Kangxi Lishui County Gazetteer, 卷之一·邑纪·五年辛未

Translated: In the fifth year, the zhixian (county magistrate) Liu Yinglei measured the fields very clearly and removed more than four thousand shi of flying grain, ending the abuse for good. The people were deeply grateful; when Liu died, a shrine was built to him with offerings. See the biography and the record of the shrine for details.

The entry has three layers: the measurement was clear; more than four thousand shi of flying grain were removed; and the abuse was ended for good, which is the gazetteer's own verdict. The last sentence records that after Liu's death the residents built a shrine to him, with a note referring to the biography and the shrine record.

Consequences

After the survey the field quota of Lishui rested on a more reliable base, and more than four thousand shi of flying grain were removed. In 1581 the magistrate Chen Zizhen measured the fields again and found a shortfall of more than 84,693 mu against the original quota, which the gazetteer attributes to land gradually washed away by the lake. The survey of 1571 therefore did not settle the long-term loss of registered fields.

Uncertainties

First, the gazetteer does not explain how flying grain worked; this entry does not read the term literally and records only the name and the amount.

Second, the name, site and date of the shrine to Liu Yinglei are not given beyond the note referring to the biography and the shrine record, neither of which is in this volume.

Third, the year of Liu Yinglei's death is not recorded; the shrine follows the survey in the gazetteer but that does not mean he died in the same year.

Fourth, the gazetteer does not define which year's figure is the "original quota" used in the survey of 1581 — that of 1385 or that of 1571.