1
志八十六
Treatise 86
2
選舉六
Selection and Examinations 6
3
考績
Performance Evaluation
4
三載考績之法，昉自唐、虞。 清沿明制，而品式略殊。 京官曰京察，外官曰大計，吏部考功司掌之。 京察以子卯午酉歲，部院司員由長官考覈，校以四格，懸「才、守、政、年」為鵠。 分稱職、勤職、供職三等。 列一等者，加級記名，則加考引見備外用。 糾以六法，不謹、罷輭者革職，浮躁、才力不及者降調，年老、有疾者休致，註考送部。 自翰、詹、科、道外，依次過堂。 三品京堂由部開列事實，四、五品由王、大臣分別等第，具奏引見取上裁。 大計以寅已申亥歲，先期籓、臬、道、府遞察其屬賢否，申之督、撫，督、撫覈其事狀，註考繕冊送部覆覈。 才守俱優者，舉以卓異。 劣者，劾以六法。 不入舉劾者為平等。 卓異官自知縣而上，皆引見候旨。 六法處分如京察，貪酷者特參。
The practice of reviewing officials every three years began in the age of Yao and Shun. The Qing adopted the Ming framework, though its ranks and procedures differed in detail. Capital officials underwent the capital inspection, local officials the grand assessment, both overseen by the Board of Civil Appointments' Department of Merit Records. The capital inspection took place in cyclical years marked by zi, mao, wu, and you; department staff were rated by their chiefs against four benchmarks—talent, integrity, administrative performance, and age. Ratings fell into three grades: fully competent, diligent, and merely adequate. First-grade officials received a rank increment and were listed for promotion; after further review they were presented to the throne as candidates for provincial posts. Six categories governed disciplinary action: careless or ineffectual officials were dismissed; frivolous or incapable ones demoted; aged or infirm ones retired—with all evaluations forwarded to the Board. Except for Hanlin, Court of Imperial Entertainments, censorate, and supervising-secretary staff, all others were examined in sequence at court. Third-rank metropolitan officials were evaluated on factual records submitted by their ministries; fourth- and fifth-rank officials were graded by princes and senior ministers, memorialized, presented to the throne, and decided by imperial rescript. The grand assessment occurred in years of yin, si, shen, and hai; beforehand provincial, judicial, circuit, and prefectural officers successively reviewed subordinates and reported upward; governors-general and governors verified records, compiled evaluation registers, and submitted them to the Board for final review. Officials distinguished in both talent and integrity were nominated as outstanding. Deficient officials were impeached under the six disciplinary categories. Those neither commended nor censured were rated average. Outstanding officials from district magistrate rank upward were presented to the throne for imperial decision. Disciplinary measures followed the same six categories as the capital inspection, with corrupt and brutal officials specially impeached.
5
凡京察一等、大計卓異有定額，京官七而一，筆帖式八而一，道、府、廳、州、縣十五而一，佐雜、教官百三十而一，以是為率。 非歷俸滿者，未及年限者，革職留任或錢糧未完者，滿官不射布靶、不諳清語者，均不得膺上考。 其大較也。 順治八年，京察始著為令，以六年為期。 十三年，吏部奏定則例，三品以上自陳，四品等官吏部、都察院察考議奏，親定去留。 筆帖式照有職官例一體考察。 遇京察時，各官暫停升轉。 尋復定考滿議敘例，三年考滿與六年察典並行。 十七年，從左都御史魏裔介請，行糾拾之法，以補甄別所未及。 唐熙元年罷京察，專用三年考滿例。 三品以上仍自陳。 餘官分五等：一等稱職者紀錄，二等稱職者賞賚，平常者留任，不及者降調，不稱職者革職。 三年，御史季振宜請停考滿三疏，極言徇情鑽營，章奏繁擾，無裨勸懲。 因停考滿自陳例。 六年，復行京察。 明年，甄別不及官三十七員。 嗣以各部、院甄別司員，類多末職，二十三年，嚴諭指名題參，復甄汰王三省等三十六人。 明年，京察又停。 雍正元年復舉行，改為三年，自是為定制。
Quotas governed first-grade capital ratings and outstanding grand-assessment nominations: one in seven for metropolitan officials, one in eight for clerks, one in fifteen for circuit and county-level officers, one in one hundred thirty for assistants and instructors. Officials who had not completed required tenure, those with incomplete fiscal accounts, those dismissed but retained in post, and Banner officers unable to pass archery or speak Manchu were all barred from top ratings. Such were the general rules. In Shunzhi 8 (1651), the capital inspection was first codified on a six-year cycle. In Shunzhi 13 (1656), the Board codified rules: third-rank officials and above submitted self-assessments; fourth-rank and below were examined by the Board and Censorate, with the emperor deciding retention or removal. Clerks were examined under the same rules as regular officials. During the capital inspection, promotions and transfers were suspended. Soon rules for triennial review rewards were restored, running the three-year completion review alongside the six-year inspection. In Shunzhi 17 (1660), at the request of Left Censor-in-Chief Wei Yijie, supplementary impeachment procedures were introduced to catch what regular screening missed. In Kangxi 1 (1662), the capital inspection was abolished in favor of the triennial completion review alone. Third-rank officials and above still submitted self-assessments. Other officials were graded in five tiers: top competent officials were recorded for promotion; second-tier competent ones received rewards; average ones kept their posts; substandard ones demoted; incompetent ones dismissed. In Kangxi 3 (1664), Censor Ji Zhenyi submitted three memorials to abolish the completion review, arguing that favoritism and careerism dominated, paperwork overwhelmed the court, and the system failed to reward merit or punish failure. Self-assessment upon completion of review was accordingly abolished. In Kangxi 6 (1667), the capital inspection was restored. The following year, thirty-seven substandard officials were identified. Because ministries mostly culled junior staff, Kangxi 23 (1684) brought an edict demanding named impeachments of senior officials; thirty-six more, including Wang Sansheng, were removed. The capital inspection was suspended again the next year. It was revived in Yongzheng 1 (1723) on a three-year cycle, which thereafter became standard.
6
初，京察一等無定額，康熙三年，御史張沖翼疏請以部、院員數之多寡定一、二等名數，以息奔競，從之。 乾隆間，部、院保送一等，或浮濫溢舊額，詔停兼部行走，仍歸本衙門另班聲敘，暨到任未滿半年，仍由原衙門註考等例。 又罷未授職庶吉士保列一等之例，以示限制。 四十二年，命部、院保送一等人數，毋庸過泥上屆成例，遞行裁減，以防溢額。 應將上兩次數目比較，酌中定制。 既無慮濫膺保薦，亦不至屈抑人才。 五十年，定例保送一等人數，以不溢四十八年原額為準。 後世踵行，間有增損，無甚懸殊也。 向例部、院司官由吏部、都察院考覈，雍正四年，命內閣大學士同閱。 乾隆九年，帝慮部、院堂官有瞻徇情面濫列一等者，敕大學士驗看，慎重甄別，不稱一等者裁去。 十一年諭曰：「前命大學士分別去留，亦權宜辦理之道。 察覈司員，惟堂官最為親切。 要在平日留心體察，臨時舉措公平。 如上次定一等者，三年中行走平常，當改為二、三等。 上次原列二、三等者，三年中知所奮勉，即改為一等。 庶察典肅而人知勸懲。」 厥後考察權責，悉屬吏部，驗看特奉行故事而已。
Initially first-grade capital ratings had no quota; in Kangxi 3 (1664), Censor Zhang Chongyi proposed fixing first- and second-grade numbers by ministry size to curb favor-seeking, and the court agreed. Under Qianlong, first-grade nominations often exceeded quotas; edicts ended concurrent cross-ministry service, required separate ranking within home offices, and kept officials of less than six months' tenure under their original ministry's evaluation. Unassigned Hanlin bachelors were also barred from first-grade nomination as a further restriction. In Qianlong 42 (1777), ministries were told not to match previous sessions' first-grade numbers but to reduce nominations progressively to prevent quota inflation. Quotas were to be set by comparing the last two sessions and striking a moderate balance. This would curb inflated nominations without unfairly suppressing able officials. In Qianlong 50 (1785), regulations capped first-grade nominations at the Qianlong 48 quota. Later reigns followed this practice with minor adjustments but no major change. Traditionally the Board and Censorate examined ministry staff; in Yongzheng 4 (1726), Grand Secretaries were ordered to review jointly. In Qianlong 9 (1744), fearing ministry chiefs favored protégés with first-grade ratings, the emperor ordered grand ministers to verify nominations and strike unworthy candidates. In Qianlong 11 (1746) an edict stated: "Having grand ministers decide retention was only an expedient. Department chiefs know their staff best and are best placed to evaluate them. They should observe staff daily and act fairly at inspection time. Officials rated first grade last time but merely average since should be downgraded to second or third grade. Those previously in second or third grade who have improved should be promoted to first grade. Only then would inspections be rigorous and officials know that merit and failure have consequences. Thereafter examination authority reverted entirely to the Board, and grand-minister verification became a mere formality.
7
大臣循例自陳求斥罷，候旨照舊供職，國初以來行之。 乾隆八年，曾諭大臣自陳罷斥者舉賢自代。 嗣以所舉不得其人，或樹黨營私，行不久即罷。 十七年，帝以「內、外大臣親自簡擢，隨時黜陟，奚待三年？ 自陳繁文，相率為偽，甚無謂也」。 詔罷其例。
Since the dynasty's founding, senior ministers had ritually submitted self-assessments requesting dismissal, then continued in office upon imperial leave. In Qianlong 8 (1743), ministers submitting self-dismissal assessments were ordered to recommend worthy successors. The practice was soon dropped because nominees proved unfit or factional, or recommenders were themselves soon dismissed. In Qianlong 17 (1752) the emperor declared: "I personally appoint and dismiss inner and outer ministers at will—why wait three years? These self-assessments are empty formalities, universally hypocritical and utterly pointless." An edict abolished the practice.
8
先是京堂官無甄敘例，乾隆十五年，帝以三品以上堂官，具本自陳，部、院司員，皆令引見，而四、五品京堂不在自陳之列，亦無引見之例，吏部、都察院考語無實，龍鍾庸劣者得姑容，才具優長者無由見。 特派王、大臣分別等第，奏聞引見。 十八年，敕吏部開列三品京堂事實，親為裁奪。 四十八年，以三品京堂不便派大臣驗看，令吏部帶額引見。 嘉慶十二年，以三、四品京堂，向來京察但有降黜無甄敘，既與內、外大臣辦理兩歧，並不得與部、院司員同邀加級。 於是予太常少卿色克精額等議敘，而予陳鍾琛等休致。 自後三品以下京堂始有甄敘之例矣。
Previously fourth- and fifth-rank metropolitan officials had no promotion review: third-rank and above submitted self-assessments and ministry staff were presented, but fourth- and fifth-rank officials were neither assessed nor presented; Board evaluations were perfunctory, mediocre officials were tolerated, and able ones had no chance to advance. Princes and senior ministers were specially assigned to grade them, memorialize, and present them to the throne. In Qianlong 18 (1753) the emperor ordered the Board to submit factual records on third-rank metropolitan officials for his personal decision. In Qianlong 48 (1783), third-rank metropolitan officials were presented by the Board within quota rather than by assigned verifying ministers. In Jiaqing 12 (1807), because third- and fourth-rank metropolitan officials faced only demotion in the capital inspection, unlike other senior officials and ministry staff who could earn rank increments— Vice Minister of Imperial Sacrifices Sekejing'e and others were granted promotion consideration, while Chen Zhongchen and others were retired. From then on, metropolitan officials below third rank could receive promotion consideration through the capital inspection.
9
年老休致，例有明文。 乾隆二十二年，定部、院屬官五十五歲以上，堂官詳加甄別。 三十三年，改定京察二、三等留任各官，六十五歲以上引見。 嘉慶三年，命京察二、三等官引見，以年逾七十為限。 尋復舊例。 六法處分綦嚴，長官往往博寬大之名，每屆京察，祗黜退數人，虛應故事，餘概優容，而被劾者又不免屈抑。 雍正中，汪景祺、查嗣庭輩論列時政，以部員壅滯為言，有「十年不調、白首為郎」等語。 帝責以怨望誹謗，而事實不得謂誣。 蓋部員冗濫，康、雍時已然矣。
Mandatory retirement by age was clearly regulated. In Qianlong 22 (1757), ministry officials aged fifty-five and above were to be carefully screened by their chiefs. In Qianlong 33 (1768), second- and third-grade officials retained in post who were sixty-five or older were to be presented to the throne. In Jiaqing 3 (1798), second- and third-grade officials were presented only if over seventy. The earlier rule was soon restored. Though the six disciplinary categories were strict, chiefs often sought reputations for leniency: each inspection dismissed only a few officials as a formality, indulged the rest, yet still wrongfully suppressed those impeached. Under Yongzheng, Wang Jingqi, Zha Siting, and others criticized current affairs, citing ministry congestion with lines such as "ten years without promotion, white-haired yet still a gentleman-attendant." The emperor condemned them for seditious slander, though their facts were not false. Ministry overstaffing was already a problem under Kangxi and Yongzheng.
10
乾隆三年，鴻臚少卿查斯海疏言：「京官被劾，不無以嫌隙入吏議者。 京察六法官，應援大計例送部引見。」 從之。 乾隆末，士夫習為諂諛，堂官拔識司員，率以逢迎巧捷為曉事，察典懈弛。 仁宗初，銳意求治，頗思以崇實黜華，獎勵氣節，風示天下。 嘉慶五年，詔部、院堂官慎重選舉，猷守兼優者膺首薦，餘寧取資格較久、謹愿樸實之員，其少年浮薄、才華髮越者，應令深其經練，下屆保列。 尚書、侍郎各備冊密識賢否，公議同覽。 十一年，大學士、尚書等議奏京察事宜：「捐納人員，限以年資，軍機處司員能兼部務者，方列上考，不許濫保充數。」 報可。
In Qianlong 3 (1738), Vice Minister of State Ceremonial Zha Sihai memorialized: "Impeached capital officials are sometimes punished because of personal grudges. Officials disciplined under the six capital-inspection categories should, as in the grand assessment, be presented to the Board for review. The proposal was approved. By late Qianlong, flattery prevailed; chiefs favored ingratiating cleverness over competence, and inspections grew lax. Early in Jiaqing's reign, the emperor sought good governance, hoping to reward substance over show, encourage integrity, and set an example for the empire. In Jiaqing 5 (1800) an edict ordered careful nominations: officials outstanding in both policy and integrity should be recommended first; otherwise prefer senior, steady officials; youthful or flashy talents should gain experience and wait for the next inspection. Ministers and vice ministers were to keep private registers of officials' merit and review them collectively. In Jiaqing 11 (1806) senior ministers memorialized on the capital inspection: "Purchased offices should be limited by seniority; only Grand Council clerks who also handle ministry work may receive top ratings; padding nominations is forbidden." The memorial was approved.
11
道光四年，候際清贖罪舞弊一案，刑部司員恩德等朋謀撞騙堂官，以謬登薦牘，保列一等，下部議處。 諭嗣後京察有冒濫徇私者連坐。 七年，給事中吳傑奏：「大計、軍政，皆有舉有劾。 近年六部辦理京察，除保舉一等外，不問賢否，概列二等。 間有三等數人，仍予留任。 六法不施，有勸無懲。 應申明舊章，舉劾並用。」 帝韙其言，降諭飭行。 十五年，令於京察外隨時糾參，以為補救。 咸豐十年，刑部堂官濫保不諳例案之員，朝廷務循寬大，輒以相習成風，不獨刑部為然，多為原宥。 僅予大學士桂良等鐫級留任，出考堂官罰俸而已。 穆宗即位，大難未平，厲精澄敘。 同治五年，詔部、院堂官謹遵嘉慶五年備冊密識賢否、公議同覽之諭，並常川進署，與司員講求公事，藉覘其屬賢否。 八年，又諭京察不得有舉無劾，冀湔滌舊習，一新庶政。 然積重之勢，不能復返。 光緒七年，禮部侍郎寶廷疏陳京察積弊，言之痛切，謂：「瞻徇情面之弊，不專在部、院堂官，當責樞臣考察，必公必嚴。 樞臣果精白乃心，破除情面，不特能考察部、院司員之賢否，並能考察內、外大臣之賢否。 而考察樞臣功過，在聖明獨斷。 若朝廷先以京察為故事具文，何責乎樞臣，更何責乎部、院堂官！」 論雖切中而難實行，徒託空言而已。 宣統二年，吏部設立憲政籌備處，改考功司為考績科，主文職功過應行變通事宜。 其時浮議紛紜，新舊雜糅，吏部等於贅疣矣。
In Daoguang 4 (1824), in the Hou Jiqing bribery case, Ministry of Justice clerks including Ende conspired to deceive their chiefs into recommending unworthy officials for first grade; the case was referred for disciplinary action. An edict decreed collective punishment for future capital inspections marred by favoritism or inflated nominations. In Daoguang 7 (1827), Supervising Secretary Wu Jie memorialized: "The grand assessment and military inspections both include commendation and impeachment. Recently the Six Ministries rated nearly everyone second grade regardless of merit, recommending only a few for first grade. A handful received third grade yet were still retained. The six disciplinary categories went unused—reward without punishment. Old regulations should be enforced so commendation and impeachment work together. The emperor agreed and issued an edict ordering compliance. In Daoguang 15 (1835), officials could be impeached at any time outside the regular inspection as a corrective measure. In Xianfeng 10 (1860), Ministry of Justice chiefs recommended officials ignorant of legal precedent; the court's habitual leniency extended across ministries, and most offenders were pardoned. Only Grand Secretary Gui Liang and others lost a rank increment while retaining office; inspecting chiefs received only salary fines. When the Tongzhi Emperor acceded amid ongoing crisis, he strove to tighten official evaluation. In Tongzhi 5 (1866) an edict ordered ministry chiefs to follow Jiaqing's private merit registers and collective review, attend office regularly, discuss business with staff, and thereby assess subordinates. In Tongzhi 8 (1869) another edict required both commendation and impeachment in the capital inspection, hoping to break old habits and renew governance. Yet entrenched habits could not be reversed. In Guangxu 7 (1881), Vice Minister of Rites Baoting memorialized on capital-inspection abuses, arguing forcefully that favoritism was not limited to ministry chiefs: Grand Council ministers must conduct inspections that were fair and strict. If council ministers were truly impartial and broke with favoritism, they could evaluate not only ministry staff but also all senior civil and military officials. Judging the council ministers themselves, however, rested with the emperor alone. If the court treated the capital inspection as empty formality, how could one blame council ministers—or ministry chiefs? His argument was sound but impracticable—mere empty rhetoric. In Xuantong 2 (1910), the Board established a Constitutional Preparation Office, renamed the Department of Merit Records the Performance Evaluation Section, and oversaw reforms to civil performance review. By then debate swirled, old and new systems overlapped, and the Board had become largely redundant.
12
大計始順治二年，御史張濩疏請有司殿最，宜以守己端潔、實心愛民為上考。 部覆如議。 明年，定朝覲考察，頒五花冊，令督、撫以四格註考。 故事，計參外，台、省例有拾遺。 是歲計群吏，止據撫、按所揭為黜陟。 台、省擬循故事，內大臣不喜。 大學士陳名夏力主之，給事中魏象樞亦以為請。 得旨，糾拾官照大計處分挾私妄糾者論。 自後台、省意存瞻顧，糾拾者鮮。 已，罷不行，而督、撫權乃日重矣。 四年，定大計三年一舉，計處官不許還職。 諭朝覲官曰：「貪酷重懲，闒茸罔貰。 爾等姑許留任，當思祓濯前愆，勉圖後效。」 嗣是每屆入覲之年，必嚴切誡飭以為常。 舊例朝覲計典，籓、臬、府、州、縣正官皆入覲。 順治九年，止令籓、臬各一員、各府佐一員代覲。 十八年，給事中雷一龍疏言； 「三年大計，勿得遺大吏而摘微員，懲去位而寬現在。 請令籓、臬赴部，面同指實，按冊詳察。」 下部議行。 康熙元年，停籓、臬入覲，以參政、副使等官代。 十二年，復令籓、臬入覲。 二十五年，以朝覲藉端苛派，奸弊滋生，籓、臬、府佐入覲例悉罷。 官吏賢否去留，憑督、撫文冊，布、按二司冊籍悉停止。 國初大計與考滿並行，康熙元年，罷大計，止行考滿。 司、道歷腹俸二年、邊俸一年半，有司歷邊俸二年、腹俸三年，錢糧全完者許考滿。 分別地方荒殘、沖疲、充實、簡易四者開註，以政績多寡酌定等第。 四年，考滿停，復行大計，為永制。 大計舉劾註考，例由州、縣正官申送本府、道考覈； 教官由學道，鹽政官由該正官考覈； 轉呈布、按覆考，督、撫覈定，咨達部、院。 河官兼有刑名、錢糧之責者，總河、督、撫各行考覈。 專管河務者，總河自行考覈具題。
The grand assessment began in Shunzhi 2 (1645), when Censor Zhang Pu proposed ranking local officials chiefly on personal integrity and genuine care for the people. The Board approved the proposal. The next year court-audience inspection was codified; five-pattern registers were issued, and governors-general and governors were to evaluate officials by four criteria. By precedent, besides the formal assessment, censors could also submit supplementary impeachments. That year promotions and demotions relied solely on reports from governors and surveillance commissioners. The censorate proposed following precedent, but senior ministers objected. Grand Secretary Chen Mingxia strongly supported it, as did Supervising Secretary Wei Xiangdong. An edict decreed punishment for censors who filed false impeachments out of private motive during the grand assessment. Thereafter the censorate grew cautious, and supplementary impeachments became rare. The practice was soon abolished, and gubernatorial power grew steadily heavier. In Shunzhi 4 (1647), the grand assessment was fixed at three-year intervals; officials under review could not resume duty. Officials attending court audience were told: "The greedy and cruel will be severely punished; the incompetent will not be pardoned. You are temporarily retained in office; cleanse past faults and strive to do better." Thereafter stern admonitions became routine in every court-audience year. By old rule, provincial, judicial, prefectural, and county chiefs all attended court for the assessment. In Shunzhi 9 (1652), only one provincial and one judicial officer each, plus one prefectural deputy per prefecture, attended in proxy. In Shunzhi 18 (1661), Supervising Secretary Lei Yilong memorialized: "In the triennial grand assessment, do not overlook senior officials while punishing only minor ones, or punish departed officials while indulging those still in office. Require provincial and judicial officials to come to the capital, verify facts in person, and examine registers in detail." The memorial was referred to the Board for implementation. In Kangxi 1 (1662), provincial and judicial chiefs ceased attending court; administrative commissioners and vice commissioners attended instead. In Kangxi 12 (1673), provincial and judicial chiefs were again required to attend court. In Kangxi 25 (1686), because court audience became a pretext for extortion and corruption, all rules requiring provincial, judicial, and prefectural deputies to attend were abolished. Officials' merit and retention depended on governors' reports alone; registers from the provincial administration and surveillance commissions were discontinued. Early in the dynasty the grand assessment ran alongside triennial completion review; in Kangxi 1 the grand assessment was abolished in favor of completion review alone. Circuit officials needed two years on interior salary and one and a half on frontier salary; local officials needed two years on frontier salary and three on interior salary; only those with complete fiscal accounts could complete review. Localities were classified as devastated, overburdened, prosperous, or simple, and grades were adjusted according to administrative achievement. In Kangxi 4 (1665), completion review was halted and the grand assessment was permanently restored. Grand-assessment nominations, impeachments, and evaluations normally began with district and county chiefs submitting upward to prefecture and circuit for review; instructors were examined by the educational intendant; salt officials by their supervising chief; then forwarded to provincial administration and surveillance for re-examination, finalized by governors-general and governors, and reported to the ministries. River officials with judicial and fiscal duties were examined separately by the director-general of rivers and by governors. Officials managing river works exclusively were examined and memorialized by the director-general alone.
13
康熙二十三年，以籓、臬與督、撫親近，停其卓異。 凡卓異官紀錄即升，不次擢用。 歷朝最重其選，徇私濫保者罪之。 康熙初，御史張沖翼請申嚴卓異定額，以詳覈事迹，使名實相副為言。 下部議。 六年，從御史田六善請，卓異官以清廉為本，司、道等官必註明不派節禮、索餽送，州、縣等官必註明不派雜差、重火耗、虧損行戶、強貸富民。 以清吏之有無，定督、撫之賢否。 其時廉吏輩出，靈壽令陸隴其等擢隸憲府，吏治蒸蒸，稱極盛焉。 四十四年，詔舉卓異，務期無加派，無濫刑，無盜案，無錢糧拖久、倉庫虧空，民生得所，地方日有起色。 其他虛文，不必開載。 乾隆八年，命督、撫以務農本計察覈屬員，論者謂以勸農為勸吏之要，深得治本，與漢詔同風。 先是雍正六年，定卓異薦舉失實處分，自行奏參者免。 卓異官有貪酷不法，或錢糧、盜案未清，發覺者，原薦督、撫處分較司、道、府為輕。 乾隆四十八年，改定卓異官犯贓，覈其年月在原薦上司離任前後，分別議處。 臬司、道、府減督、撫一等，籓司照督、撫例，以道、府按例轉詳督、撫、籓司親為覈定也。 五十年，帝以保薦卓異，向分正附，未明定限制，易開徼幸之漸。 敕部詳覈各省大小、缺分多寡，酌中定制，裁去附薦名目。 於是各省卓異官有定額，終清世無大變更也。
In Kangxi 23 (1684), outstanding nominations for provincial and judicial officials were halted because they were too close to governors. Outstanding officials were recorded for immediate promotion, often out of turn. Every dynasty prized this selection, and favoritism in nominations was punished. Early in Kangxi, Censor Zhang Chongyi urged strict outstanding quotas, detailed verification of records, and matching reputation to reality. The memorial was referred to the Board. In Kangxi 6 (1667), following Censor Tian Liushan, outstanding officials had to be fundamentally honest: circuit officials had to certify they took no festival gifts or supply levies; county officials had to certify they imposed no illegal corvée, excessive meltage fees, merchant losses, or forced loans on the wealthy. Governors' merit was judged by whether their subordinates were honest. Honest officials flourished; Magistrate Lu Longqi of Lingshou and others were promoted to judicial posts, and local administration reached its zenith. In Kangxi 44 (1705) an edict required outstanding nominations only for officials with no extra levies, abusive punishments, bandit cases, fiscal arrears, granary deficits, and with improving livelihoods and local conditions. Empty formalities need not be recorded. In Qianlong 8 (1743), governors were ordered to evaluate subordinates on agricultural policy; commentators praised this as grasping the root of governance, in the spirit of Han dynasty edicts. Earlier, in Yongzheng 6 (1728), penalties were set for false outstanding nominations, with exemption for self-reporting. When nominated outstanding officials proved corrupt or had uncleared fiscal or bandit cases, recommending governors were punished more lightly than circuit, commissioner, or prefectural officials. In Qianlong 48 (1783), when outstanding officials were found corrupt, penalties for their recommenders depended on whether the offense occurred before or after the recommender left office. Surveillance commissioners, circuit officials, and prefects were punished one grade less than governors; provincial administration commissioners followed governors' precedent, since circuit and prefectural officials reported through them for governors' personal verification. In Qianlong 50 (1785) the emperor noted that primary and supplementary outstanding nominations lacked clear limits, encouraging opportunism. The Board was ordered to calculate provincial post numbers, set moderate quotas, and abolish supplementary nominations. Each province then had fixed outstanding quotas, which changed little for the rest of the dynasty.
14
八法處分，行之既久，長吏或視為具文，每將微員細故，填註塞責。 歷朝訓諭諄諄，力戒瞻徇，猶防冤抑。 雍正元年，詔大計降級罰俸官，例不許卓異，果有居官廉幹因公詿誤者，淮與卓異。 又以卓異八法舉劾不過數十人，其不列舉劾之平等官，自知縣以上，令督、撫註考，報部察核。 四年，諭參劾人員或有冤抑及避重就輕等弊，除貪酷官無庸引見外，其不謹、浮躁、不及等被劾官，督、撫給咨送部引見。 乾隆二十四年，帝以八法參本內不謹、浮躁官，未將何事不謹、何事浮躁、一一聲敘，或有公事無誤而節目闊疏，才具有為而氣質粗率，上司以意見不洽，概登白簡，不無可惜。 其或敗檢逾閒，僅與避重就輕，均非整飭官方之意。 命詳註實跡，不得籠統參劾。 嘉慶八年，定督、撫隨時參劾闒冗平庸等事，未列敘寶跡，被劾官情原赴部引見者，得援大計六法例。 此則考覈不厭詳密，冀搜求遺才，輔計典之不及也。 嘉、道以後，計典一循舊例，督、撫奉行故事，鮮克振刷。 道光八年，山東大計卓異，護撫賀長齡原註新城令容昺悃愊慈祥等語，詔以寬厚難膺上考，令各省薦舉體用兼備、熟明治理者。 咸、同軍興，或地方甫收復，有待撫綏，或疆圉偪寇氛，亟籌保衛，敕各督、撫留心存記廉能之員，列上考，備擢用。 時督、撫權宜行事，用人不拘資格，隨時舉措，固不能以大計常例繩其後也。
The eight disciplinary categories, long in force, were often treated as empty form, with chiefs padding evaluations with minor details about junior staff. Successive dynasties earnestly warned against favoritism while also guarding against wrongful suppression. In Yongzheng 1 (1723) an edict barred demoted or fined officials from outstanding nomination, except honest capable officials wronged by official duty. Because outstanding nominations and eight-category impeachments involved only dozens of officials, governors were also to evaluate average officials from district magistrate rank upward and report to the Board. In Yongzheng 4 (1726) an edict noted wrongful suppression and lenient treatment of serious offenses; except corrupt officials, those impeached as careless, frivolous, or inadequate were to be presented to the Board for review. In Qianlong 24 (1759) the emperor noted that careless and frivolous impeachments often lacked specifics; some capable officials were impeached for procedural looseness or coarse manner, or because superiors disliked them—wasteful of talent. Serious moral failures treated leniently were equally contrary to rectifying official conduct. Detailed factual records were required; vague impeachments were forbidden. In Jiaqing 8 (1803), officials impeached at any time for mediocrity without detailed facts could request presentation to the Board under the grand-assessment six-category precedent. This reflected exhaustive review hoping to find overlooked talent beyond what formal assessments could reach. After Jiaqing and Daoguang, assessments followed old precedent; governors observed form but rarely reformed. In Daoguang 8 (1828), Acting Governor He Changling of Shandong nominated Magistrate Rong Bing of Xincheng as sincere and benevolent; an edict ruled that lenience alone did not qualify for top rating and ordered nominations of officials skilled in practical governance. During the Xianfeng and Tongzhi wars, some regions needed pacification and others faced bandit threats; governors were ordered to note honest capable officials for top ratings and promotion. Governors then acted expediently, appointing without regard to seniority; normal grand-assessment rules could not bind them afterward.
15
光緒間，言者每條奏計典積弊，請飭疆臣認真考察。 屢詔戒飭。 然人才既衰，吏治日壞，徒法終不能行。 二十八年，詔各省設立課吏館，限半年具奏一次。 三十一年，定考覈州、縣事實，分最優等、優等、平等、次等四級。 顧課吏祗憑一日文字，考覈僅據一年事實，責以公當，蓋亦難矣。 宣統二年，憲政編查館疏請考覈州、縣，分別學堂、巡警、工藝、種植、命盜、詞訟、監押、錢漕，以為殿最。 由主管衙門另訂考覈章程。 名目繁多，表冊虛偽，徒飾耳目，於勸懲無當也。 至若舊例翰、詹大考，分別優劣，升調降革有差，為特別考績之法。 外省司、道，年終有密考。 州、縣一年期滿，教、佐六年俸滿，皆有甄別。 則又隨時考核之法，不屬於察、計二典者。
Under Guangxu, memorialists repeatedly listed assessment abuses and urged frontier governors to conduct earnest reviews. Repeated edicts admonished them. Yet talent had declined and administration worsened; laws alone could not restore order. In Guangxu 28 (1902) an edict ordered each province to establish an official evaluation academy reporting every six months. In Guangxu 31 (1905) prefectural and county evaluations were divided into four grades: highest excellent, excellent, average, and substandard. Yet evaluation relied on a single day's writing and assessment on a single year's record—fair judgment was nearly impossible. In Xuantong 2 (1910) the Constitutional Compilation Office proposed evaluating prefectures and counties on schools, police, crafts, agriculture, homicides and theft, lawsuits, detention, and grain transport. Supervising offices were to draft separate evaluation regulations. Categories multiplied, forms were falsified, and the system served only appearances, not reward or punishment. The Hanlin and Court of Imperial Entertainments great examination, distinguishing excellence with differentiated promotion, transfer, demotion, and dismissal, was a separate evaluation method. Provincial circuit commissioners and intendants received confidential year-end evaluations. Prefectural and county officials at one-year completion, instructors and assistants at six-year salary completion—all underwent screening. These were ongoing evaluation methods outside the capital inspection and grand assessment.
16
武之軍政，猶文之考察，兵部職方司掌之。 內、外衛、所，分屬於武選司。 在京武職，由管旗及部、院覈奏； 各省由統兵大員註考。 京營千總以上，外省綠營守備以上，各由長官考覈，分操守、才能、騎射、年歲四格。 舉劾與文職同。 三品以上自陳，由部疏聞候旨。 八旗世爵，則校其藝進退之。 綠營舉劾，每于軍政後一年半舉行，題升一二人入薦舉班升用，劾者照軍政處分。 此其大略也。
Military inspection paralleled civil performance review and was administered by the Board of War's Department of Military Appointments. Inner and outer guards and posts fell under the Department of Military Selection. Capital military officials were examined and memorialized by banner commanders and ministries; provincial ones by commanders-in-chief who recorded evaluations. Capital garrison battalion commanders and provincial Green Standard garrison commanders and above were examined by superiors on integrity, ability, horsemanship and archery, and age. Commendation and impeachment followed the same rules as for civil officials. Third-rank officers and above submitted self-assessments; the Board memorialized and awaited imperial decree. Hereditary Banner ranks were advanced or retired according to skill examinations. Green Standard commendations and impeachments occurred a year and a half after each military inspection; one or two officers were nominated for promotion; impeached officers were disciplined under military-inspection rules. Such were the general rules.
17
國初未立限制，順治九年，定六年一舉，是為軍政考覈之始。 十一年，改定五年為期。 十三年，從給事中張文光請，軍政卓異，照文官賜服旌勸，後改為加一級。 康熙元年，停軍政，專行考滿。 既而兵部疏請直省武職應依文官例，按年限由總督、提督會同舉劾。 御史季振宜疏言：「武職考滿，營謀優等，剋扣軍饟，貽誤封疆。 請按歷俸功次升轉。」 於是六年定舉行軍政事宜，京、外武職長官，註以四格，並詳列履行、軍功，分別去留，咨部。 必註明行止端方、弓馬嫻熟、管轄嚴肅、供職勤慎、不擾害地方等考語，方許薦舉。 必有八法等款實跡，始行糾參。 復令提督、總兵官自陳，提督由總督註考，總兵官由總督、提督註考。 無總督省分，巡撫註考。 嗣以滇省用兵，海內騷動，羽書倥傯，軍政曠不舉行者十年。 至二十一年，滇逆蕩平，從給事中碩穆科請，舉行軍政大典，各官事實履行，自康熙十一年軍政後開起。 九門千總等由九門提督註考。 候補總兵官亦令自陳。 副將以下候缺者，照舊例考察。 六十一年，命在京武職領侍衛內大臣，八旗都統，前鋒、護軍、步軍統領，副都統等，毋庸自陳。 考選軍政時，屬員註考，照外省舉劾例。 各省駐防將軍、副都統等，照提、鎮例自陳。 屬員照京城例。 德州等處城守尉、協領，派大臣往考，會同察覈其屬，註考以聞。 雍正元年，命平等官守備以上，督、撫、提、鎮註考。 其冬，詔曰：「初次考選軍政，有出兵效力、年老俸深、尚能坐理者，留任。 不宜留任者，另奏加恩。 或雖未效力行間，而供職年久者，亦留心驗看。」 此則垂念資勞，特頒寬典，非常例也。 二年，諭各省所保副、參、游擊，輪流引見，察其人材弓馬，督、撫、提、鎮以其操守訓練，分別等第密陳。 六年，山西太原總兵官袁立松疏陳平垣營守備梁玉廉潔敏練，以年老入參劾。 帝以諳練才不可多得，命酌量以游擊題補，尤殊恩也。 是年定卓異官原任有貪酷不法，或升調他省，別犯贓罪，原舉長官，分別處分。
Initially no cycle was fixed; in Shunzhi 9 (1652) a six-year military inspection was established. In Shunzhi 11 (1654) the cycle was changed to five years. In Shunzhi 13 (1656), following Supervising Secretary Zhang Wenguang, outstanding military nominees received ceremonial rewards like civil officials; later this became a one-rank increment. In Kangxi 1 (1662), military inspection was halted in favor of completion review alone. Soon the Board of War proposed that provincial military officers follow civil precedent, with governors-general and provincial commanders jointly recommending and impeaching by years of service. Censor Ji Zhenyi memorialized: "In military completion reviews, officers scheme for top grades, embezzle army pay, and harm frontier defense. Promotions should follow salary history and merit ranking." In Kangxi 6 (1667) military inspection procedures were codified: capital and provincial military chiefs were rated by four criteria, with detailed service records and military merit, then retained or removed and reported to the Board. Nominations required noting upright conduct, skilled archery and horsemanship, strict command, diligent service, and no harm to local populations. Impeachment required factual records under the eight disciplinary categories. Provincial and regional commanders submitted self-assessments; provincial commanders were evaluated by governors-general, regional commanders by governors-general and provincial commanders. In provinces without a governor-general, the governor recorded evaluations. War in Yunnan then disturbed the empire; urgent dispatches piled up, and military inspection was suspended for ten years. In Kangxi 21 (1682), after the Yunnan rebellion was suppressed, Supervising Secretary Shuomuke's request restored the great military inspection, with service records dating from the Kangxi 11 inspection. Nine Gates battalion commanders were evaluated by the Nine Gates commander. Candidate regional commanders also submitted self-assessments. Brigade generals and below awaiting posts were examined under the old rules. In Kangxi 61 (1722), capital military officials including inner palace guard ministers, Banner lieutenant-generals, vanguard, guard, and foot-soldier commanders, and deputy lieutenant-generals were exempted from self-assessment. During military inspection, subordinates were evaluated under the same commendation and impeachment rules as provincial officials. Provincial garrison generals and deputy lieutenant-generals submitted self-assessments like provincial and regional commanders. Their subordinates followed capital rules. Garrison commandants and assistant commandants at Dezhou and elsewhere were examined by dispatched ministers who jointly reviewed subordinates and reported evaluations. In Yongzheng 1 (1723), average officials from garrison commander rank upward were evaluated by governors and military commanders. That winter an edict stated: "At the first military inspection, veterans with long service who could still manage affairs were retained. Those unsuitable for retention were separately memorialized for special grace. Even those without campaign service but with long tenure were to be carefully examined." This showed concern for long service—a special leniency, not ordinary precedent. In Yongzheng 2 (1724) recommended brigade generals, regimental colonels, and battalion commanders were presented in rotation; governors and commanders secretly reported grades based on integrity, training, and horsemanship. In Yongzheng 6 (1728), Regional Commander Yuan Lisong of Taiyuan memorialized that Garrison Commander Liang Yulian of Pingyuan was honest, capable, and skilled, yet was impeached for age. The emperor ruled that seasoned talent was rare and ordered him considered for battalion commander—a special grace. That year penalties were set for recommenders when outstanding officials proved corrupt, including offenses committed after transfer to another province.
18
乾隆二年，部議出兵效力人員，年老休致，令子弟一人入伍食糧，無子弟亦給守糧養贍。 從之。 時直省保題員弁，類以明白勤敏、才堪辦事列上選。 十一年，諭嗣後保題，務重弓馬漢仗。 十五年，以各省所保總兵官鮮當意，諭曰：「年滿千總一項，類多猥瑣。 國家擢用武職，營伍為正途，拔補將弁，必選之若輩。 緣次而升，皆自年滿千總始。 折衝禦侮之用，豫籌於昇平無事之日，不可視為緩圖。」 二十四年，以大臣自陳例既罷，敕兵部于軍政年，將在京都統、副都統，在外駐防將軍、都統、副都統，各省提督、總兵官，分別三本，條舉事實候鑒裁，以重考績。 四十二年，定衛、所綠營武職薦舉卓異尚未升轉，再遇軍政列平等者，將上次卓異註銷。 嘉慶四年，定侍衛軍政考試，向例軍政年不許告病乞休，以杜規避。 八年，申諭查閱營伍年分，事關考覈，照軍政例，不得告病、乞休。 咸、同軍興，百度稍弛，軍政大典，相沿不廢。 咸豐二年，黑龍江將軍英隆以俄兵窺伺，派將弁扼守要隘，疏請本年軍政展限舉行。 不允。 嗣湖廣總督程矞采等以軍務未竣，疏請展限，令凱撤後再行補考。 並諭年老力衰者，隨時參辦。 沿及德宗，雖加意振飭，勢成弩末，展限之舉，史不絕書。
In Qianlong 2 (1737) the Board ruled that campaign veterans retiring on age could have one son enter the ranks for rations, or receive guard-ration support if they had no son. The proposal was approved. Provincial nominations then typically cited clarity, diligence, and administrative competence for top selection. In Qianlong 11 (1746) an edict required future nominations to emphasize archery, horsemanship, and weapons drill. In Qianlong 15 (1750), because nominated regional commanders rarely satisfied the emperor, an edict declared: "Battalion commanders completing tenure are mostly petty and trivial. The state promotes military officers through the camps—the proper path—and must select generals and officers from among them. Stepwise promotion all begins with battalion commanders completing tenure. Defense against enemies must be prepared in peacetime and cannot be deferred." In Qianlong 24 (1759), with ministerial self-assessment abolished, the Board of War ordered capital and provincial commanders to submit three memorials listing facts during military inspection years, strengthening performance review. In Qianlong 42 (1777), Green Standard officers nominated as outstanding but not yet promoted had that nomination cancelled if rated average at the next military inspection. In Jiaqing 4 (1799), guard military inspections were regulated; illness retirement was forbidden in inspection years to prevent evasion. In Jiaqing 8 (1803) it was reiterated that illness retirement was forbidden in camp-inspection years, as in military inspection years. During the Xianfeng and Tongzhi wars many regulations lapsed, yet the great military inspection continued. In Xianfeng 2 (1852), Heilongjiang General Yinglong, facing Russian probing, dispatched officers to key passes and requested postponing that year's military inspection. The request was denied. Later Huguang Governor-General Cheng Yucai and others, citing unfinished military affairs, requested extension and supplementary examination after victory. Aged and weak officers could also be impeached at any time. Under the Guangxu Emperor, despite efforts at revival, momentum failed; extensions were endlessly recorded.
19
光緒十四年，編定北洋海軍，由海軍衙門司黜陟。 甲午以後，力鑒覆轍，裁綠營，練新軍，別訂考覈章程。 三十二年，改兵部為陸軍部，其考覈隸軍衡司。 宣統二年，設海軍部，其考覈隸軍制司。 朝廷銳意革新，軍紀宜可少振。 無如積習已深，時艱日棘，卒歸罔濟雲。
In Guangxu 14 (1888) the Beiyang Navy was organized, with promotions overseen by the Naval Affairs Yamen. After the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95, learning from defeat, the Green Standard Army was cut, new armies trained, and separate evaluation regulations drafted. In Guangxu 32 (1906) the Board of War became the Ministry of the Army, with evaluation under the Department of Military Standards. In Xuantong 2 (1910) the Ministry of the Navy was established, with evaluation under the Department of Military Organization. The court was keen to reform; military discipline ought to have improved somewhat. Yet entrenched habits ran deep, the times grew harder daily, and in the end nothing availed.