Counting the Settlement: the Council's censuses from 1,666 foreigners in 1870 to a million Chinese in 1934

The short answer. Nobody knows exactly how many people lived in the International Settlement, and the Municipal Council said so every five years. Its censuses, taken on a single day in June or October by police constables and the tax office with forms that householders lost, ignored or filled in as jokes, counted 1,666 foreigners and 75,047 Chinese in 1870, 11,497 and 452,716 in 1905, and 29,947 and 810,279 in 1925, after which the Council admitted that “passive hostility” after the shooting of 30 May had probably kept the Chinese figure low. The population it governed had grown eleven-fold in fifty-five years, the Japanese had become the largest foreign community, and the density had reached 147 persons an acre, about twice the figure for inner London. This is the Settlement counted by the people who taxed it.

1865–1885: a count every five years

The first figures are Pott’s, from the year the Taiping war ended: “in 1865 the Chinese population shrank to 70,000 in the English Settlement, 47,500 in the French Concession, and 200,000 in Hongkew. The foreign population was 2,750 residents in the Settlements and 2,832 in the Naval and Military forces.” At the height of the refugee flood “some estimate that in the three Settlements and the walled city the population may have been as high as 1,500,000”, a figure nobody counted. The Council’s own series begins in 1870, when it counted 1,666 foreigners north of the Yangjingbang, 1,281 of them men, and 75,047 Chinese, and from 1876 it counted every five years. The 1880 census “was taken on the 30th June”, and its author knew what it was missing: it “was limited to the Settlements North of the Yang-king-pang, and did not include the shipping”. “The Foreign population has thus increased by 524 persons since 1876 when the previous Census was taken, but of this increase only 85 are adult males, the other 439 consisting of women and children”: the Settlement was becoming a place families lived. “The Native population shows an aggregate increase of only 12,150 in the last five years,” 107,812 in all, with 99,201 in houses and the rest “in native villages, huts and boats”.

The 1885 count, on 30 June, was the first to show the port’s new nationalities: “an increase of 1,476 in the number of Foreign residents, composed of 604 men, 509 women, and 363 children”, among them “396 British subjects, 427 Japanese, and 172 Portuguese”, to 3,673. The native population “shows the large increase of 17,853 since June 1880” to 125,665. The whole exercise cost 320 taels: “Remuneration to Overseer of Rates 100.00, Remuneration to police constables and native writers 169.00, Printing returns, jin-rik-sha hire, &c. 51.98.” The police did the counting, because they already walked every lane.

1890: a constable to every 436 inhabitants

The census of 24 June 1890 is the one the Council used to justify its police. “During the last five years the net increase in the number of foreign residents has been only 148, of whom 144 are children”, to 3,821; the adults had fallen, and “this decrease consists almost exclusively of Japanese, of whom a very large number have left the Settlement and returned to Japan, there being now only 154 here, against 288 in 1885”. The Chinese had done the opposite: “the large aggregate increase of 42,464, against an increase of 17,853 between 1880 and 1885”, to 168,129, “in which, however, are included the residents in native villages, huts, and boats, of whom the number has been estimated at 17,862”. “The census taken during the current year showed a total population of 171,950, being an increase of 64,138 over 1880 and 46,284 over 1885,” the Watch Committee wrote, and “with a population of 171,950, the strength of the Force was 394, or 1 constable to every 436 inhabitants.” Adding the shipping, 1,009, and the French Concession’s 444 to the Settlement’s 3,821 gave 5,274 foreigners in the whole port. The Council also counted houses that year: 829 foreign houses, 732 of them occupied by foreigners, 58 by Chinese and 39 empty.

1895–1905: the Settlement doubles

The 1905 report printed the series as a sentence: “The Census of the foreign population taken at each quinquennial period since 1870 shows the following expansion: 1,666, 1,673, 2,197, 3,673, 3,821, 4,684, 6,774, 11,497”, and the Chinese as “75,000, 96,000, 108,000, 126,000, 168,000, 241,000, 345,000, 452,000”. Darwent’s handbook gives 1900 in detail: a foreign population “of 3,181 men, 1,776 women, and 1,817 children”, 1,253 in the shipping not included, “a total area within municipal limits of 5,618 acres” and “the density of population per acre, 63.5 persons”, in “1,600 foreign houses” and “49,000 native houses”; the walled city beyond had “a population of 152,249 living in 27,843 houses, according to the latest native census made in the year 1900”. The Chinese figure for 1900 was 345,276, “an increase of 107,440 or 31%, against 104,281 or 43% for the preceding census”.

The 1905 census, taken on 14 October 1905 “within the limits of the Settlement, also of Foreigners living on the outside roads, at Pootung and in the Hulks”, was the first after the 1899 extension, and it found 11,497 foreigners, “an increase of 4,723 or nearly 70% during the past five years, against the corresponding period 1895 to 1900 of 2,090 or 45%”. The increases were “Japanese 1,421, British 1,022, American 429, Portuguese 351 and Germans 260”, and “the comparatively largest increase is in Japanese and Russian; the former was returned as 2,157 and the latter 354, whilst from the previous census returns the figures stood 736 and 47 respectively.” The Chinese were 452,716, and the report said where: 120,289 in the Central District, 130,899 in the Northern, 73,609 in the Eastern and 66,100 in the Western, with 37,503 “in villages and huts” and 12,358 in boats. “The principal increase in the population has been in the Northern and Western Districts: these localities are developing very rapidly. The increase in the Northern District was 43,818 and the Western 29,108.” The 2,510 people in the foreign shipping were, as always, “not included”. The census cost 1,336.32 taels, four times the figure of 1885.

1910: whose census?

The 1910 count began with a question of sovereignty. When the daotai proposed to take a census of the Settlement himself, the senior consul replied in March 1910 that “the administration of the Settlement exclusively lies on the foreign authorities and that the latter only are in position, and have powers, to take a census of the population”, and the Council on 11 April recorded its “concurrence and satisfaction in the firm reply of the Consular Body”. Its own method was printed in the Gazette: “the usual quinquennial census of the Foreign and Native population of Shanghai will be taken on Saturday, October 15, and that forms have been distributed to all Householders within the Settlement. The collection of these forms will be commenced on Monday, October 17”. The overseer of taxes, E. L. Allen, reported on 7 December: 13,536 foreigners, “an increase of 2,039 or 17.7 per cent during the past five years”, with “British 752, Japanese 1,204 and Portuguese 164” more, and 488,005 Chinese, “an aggregate increase of 35,289 or 7.8 per cent since the last Census”.

Allen was candid about the count. “Some difficulty was experienced in getting the forms filled in, when called for a large number were either reported lost or were ignored and in a number of instances the Collectors had to fill the forms up themselves”; “the Census was taken on a Saturday night when a number of foreigners were up-country or at Henli”, the regatta; “the work of the enumerator has also been somewhat hindered through would-be humorous returns”. He estimated 25,200 Chinese living just outside the limits in houses on which the Council collected its special rate, “9,500 men, 8,300 women, 7,400 children”, whom nobody had counted at all, and he explained the slow growth of the foreign total by “the consequent increase in the foreign population of the French Settlement and environs from 831 in 1905 to 1,476 in 1910”: the foreigners were moving to the French side, where the Council’s forms did not go.

1915–1920: the war and the refugees

“A census of the population was taken on October 16 by the Tax Office staff with the assistance of members of the Police Force,” the 1915 report said. The foreign population was 18,519, “an increase of 4,983 or 36.8 per cent”, and “the war has doubtless had an effect on the returns in so far as it has diminished the number of males of some nationalities and increased the number of females who are using Shanghai as a neutral place of refuge.” The Chinese population “shows a record increase of 132,396 or 27.1 per cent, since the last Census”, to 620,401, and “the figures given for the Chinese population do not include the large numbers of Chinese living on or near the outskirts of the Settlement.” Pott added the French Concession, “Chinese residents 146,595, and foreign residents 2,405”, for “a grand total for the two Settlements of 787,920”, and the adjoining Chinese districts for “approximately 1,500,000” in the port. His nationality table for both settlements put the Japanese first: they “doubled during five years, increasing from 3,466 to 7,387. In 1890 there were only 386 Japanese in the International Settlement.” The Americans “gained substantially, the figures being 959 in 1910, and 1,448 in 1915”, and “of the Chinese population, 36,398 were in foreign employ”.

The 1920 census, on 16 October, found 23,307 foreigners, 10,097 of them in the Northern District against 1,574 in the Central, and 759,839 Chinese, now most numerous in the Eastern District, 230,126, where the mills were. By 1922 the Council had stopped pretending to precision: “The steady influx of refugees, and the continuous ebb and flow of an increasing transient population, makes accurate compilation of statistics out of the question as long as these conditions exist.” It estimated 26,000 and 814,000, and a density of 149 persons an acre.

1925: the count after 30 May

The 1925 census was taken four and a half months after the police fired on the crowd in Nanjing Road. The chairman asked the Council “whether in view of present conditions the taking of the census might be postponed”, and the assistant commissioner of police said the constables could be found; the Gazette announced it for “Wednesday, October 21”, the forms “being distributed to all Householders within the Settlement” and collected from the Thursday. The results, printed in the Gazette of 3 and 10 December, gave 29,947 foreigners, “12,834 men, 9,993 women”, 3,529 boys and 3,591 girls, and 810,279 Chinese. “The composition of the Foreign population has undergone radical changes since the Great War,” the Council wrote: “German 176% Russian 118% Japanese 37% Indian 21%” were the increases since 1920. The Japanese were 13,804, the British 5,879, the Russians 2,766, the Americans 1,942, the Portuguese 1,391, the Germans 776. The Council’s own table, running back to 1870, shows how the order had changed: in 1870 there were 894 British and 7 Japanese; in 1900, 2,691 and 736; in 1910, 4,465 and 3,361; in 1920 the Japanese passed the British, 10,215 to 6,341. The Chinese were spread 133,861 in the Central District, 169,848 Northern, 290,525 Eastern and 216,045 Western; the area was 5,584 acres and “the density of population within Settlement limits: 147 persons per acre”.

The Council did not believe the Chinese figure. “While the Census returns of 1925 must be accepted as a basis for the computation of Vital Statistics, there appears to be some doubt as to their accuracy. Passive hostility to the Council’s administration, following the May 30th incident, is probably reflected in the Chinese Census returns,” because “the average annual increase shows such a marked drop during the last inter-censal period, i.e., 1910–1915: 26,400; 1915–1920: 27,880; 1920–1925: 10,080.” Over the same five years the French Concession’s Chinese population had grown “about 25,000” a year “compared with 4,000 during the preceding quinquennium”, which the Council read as “150 per cent greater than in the International Settlement”. Whether the Chinese had moved or declined to be counted, the Council could not say. Pott, with the French figures, made the whole city: 810,299 Chinese in the Settlement by his printing, and in the French Concession “foreigners 7,811 and Chinese 297,072”.

1927–1934: the million

After 1925 the Settlement filled faster than it could count. In 1927, when the Nationalist army reached Shanghai, the Gazette reported “the considerable influx of Chinese to the Settlement, Chinese hotels, shipping hongs and lodging houses showing an approximate increase of 25 per cent in the number of guests registered”, and the Council told the consuls in June that its growth “has been caused by the influx of large numbers of Chinese into the Settlement”. The 1928 estimate was 32,330 foreigners and 835,930 Chinese, 153 to the acre; “many of the refugees previously crowded within the Settlement have returned to their homes, but it has been observed that some of them have established permanent businesses”. The 1930 census, whose report is not on the Archive, gave “Foreign 17,993; Japanese 18,478; Chinese 971,397”: the Japanese alone now outnumbered all the other foreigners together. In 1932 the fighting in Zhabei brought “some 50,000 refugees” by the end of January and “about 70,000” cared for by public organisations at the end of February, “53,470” on 31 March, “19,705” at the end of April and “436” at the end of May, in 85 camps housing 44,000 at the peak; the density that year was “187.8 persons per acre” on 5,728 acres. The Council’s estimates passed a million Chinese in 1932, 1,030,554, and stood at 1,100,496 in 1934, with 48,325 foreigners. The 1934 budget set aside $6,000 for the census of 1935, twenty times what the count of 1885 had cost.

What the sources disagree on

The 1925 Chinese total is 810,279 in the Council’s tables and 810,299 in Pott; the Council’s figure is the sum of its own columns. The 1925 foreign total is 29,947 in the census table and 29,649 in a later district table that omits one column. The 1920 grand total is printed 788,146 in one Council table where the parts sum to 783,146. Darwent gives 6,777 foreigners for 1900 where his own components and the Council’s table give 6,774. The 1915 Eastern District foreigners are 2,981 in one text and 2,931 in two tables. Pott’s nationality figures for 1910 and 1915 cover both settlements and differ from the Council’s Settlement-only rows (Japanese 7,387 against 7,169 in 1915). The row the Council labels 1875 is the census of 1876. The Council’s rate of increase for 1910–15, “26,400” a year, does not quite equal its own census difference divided by five. The 1930 and 1935 census reports are not among the Council reports available, so the 1930 figures are as the 1932 report quotes them, and there is no account of how that count was taken.

What to look for

The four districts are still the map of the city. Stand at the Bund end of Nanjing Road and you are in the Central District, the only one that lost people between 1920 and 1925 as offices replaced houses. Cross the Garden Bridge and you are in the Northern District, where most of the Settlement’s foreigners lived by 1920, the Japanese north of Wusong Road; the shikumen lanes off Sichuan Road North are the houses the collectors walked. Follow Yangshupu Road east past the mills and you are in the Eastern District, the largest by 1925 at 290,525 people, almost all of them in the mill villages behind the waterfront. West of People’s Square along Nanjing Road West is the Western District, the Bubbling Well Road suburb that grew by 29,108 Chinese in the five years after it was annexed. No census marker survives; the counting was done from the police stations and the tax office in the Town Hall, both gone.