Volume 199 Treatises 152: Punishment and Law 1

夫天有五氣以育萬物，木德以生，金德以殺，亦甚盭矣，而始終之序，相成之道也。先天有刑罰以糾其民，則必溫慈惠和以行之，蓋裁之以義，推之以仁，則震殺戮之威，非求民之死，所以求其生也。書曰：「士制百姓于刑之中，以教祗德。」言刑以弼教，使之畏威遠罪，導以之善爾。唐、虞之治，固不能廢刑也；惟禮以防之，有弗及，則刑以輔之而已。王道陵遲，禮制隳廢，始專任法以罔其民，於是作為刑書，欲民無犯，而亂獄滋豐，由其本末無序，不足相成故也。

Heaven sends forth five vital forces to nourish the myriad creatures: the virtue of wood fosters life, and the virtue of metal brings death—harsh as that may seem—yet the cycle from beginning to end is the very principle by which they complete one another. When Heaven first institutes punishments to correct the people, it must apply them with warmth, kindness, beneficence, and harmony. Trim with righteousness and extend with benevolence, and the dread of killing becomes not a quest for the people's death but a means to secure their life. The Book of Documents says: "The officer sets the common people within the bounds of punishment, to teach them reverent virtue." That is to say, punishment assists instruction: it makes people fear authority and shun crime, and guides them toward what is good. Even under the rule of Tang and Yu, punishments could not be dispensed with; rites alone were relied on to prevent wrongdoing, and only where rites fell short did punishment serve as a supplement. As the kingly way declined and ritual institutions fell into ruin, rulers came to rely on law alone to trap the people. They drafted penal codes in the hope that no one would offend, yet chaos in the courts only multiplied—because they had lost the proper order of root and branch and could no longer support one another.

宋興，承五季之亂，太祖、太宗頗用重典，以繩姦慝，歲時躬自折獄慮囚，務底明慎，而以忠厚為本。海內悉平，文教寖盛，士初試官，皆習律令。其君一以寬仁為治，故立法之制嚴，而用法之情恕。獄有小疑，覆奏輒得減宥。觀夫重熙累洽之際，天下之民咸樂其生，重於犯法，而致治之盛幾乎三代之懿。元豐以來，刑書益繁，已而憸邪並進，刑政紊矣。國既南遷，威柄下逮，州郡之吏亦頗專行，而刑之寬猛繫乎其人。然累世猶知以愛民為心，雖其失慈弱，而祖宗之遺意蓋未泯焉。今摭其實，作《刑法志》。

When the Song dynasty rose, inheriting the turmoil of the Five Dynasties, Taizu and Taizong often applied severe laws to restrain treachery and wickedness. Year after year they personally presided over trials and reviewed prisoners, aiming at clarity and caution while taking loyalty and generosity as their foundation. Once the realm was fully pacified, literary culture gradually flourished, and scholars newly entering office all studied statutes and ordinances. Their rulers consistently governed with lenience and benevolence, so that although the letter of the law was strict, the spirit in which it was applied was forgiving. Whenever a case raised the slightest doubt, a memorial for review usually brought reduction of sentence or pardon. In that era of repeated radiance and accumulated harmony, the people throughout the realm delighted in life and shrank from breaking the law, and the height of good government nearly matched the excellence of the Three Dynasties. From the Yuanfeng era onward, penal codes grew ever more numerous; before long crafty and wicked men rose together, and criminal administration fell into disorder. After the court moved south, authority devolved to lower levels, and prefectural and district officials often acted on their own, so whether punishment was lenient or severe depended on who held office. Yet for generations they still took love of the people to heart; though they sometimes erred on the side of excessive lenience, the founding ancestors' intent had not yet been extinguished. Here I gather the facts and compose the Treatise on Punishment and Law.

宋法制因唐律、令、格、式，而隨時損益，則有編敕，一司、一路、一州、一縣又別有敕。建隆初，詔判大理寺竇儀等上《編敕》四卷，凡一百有六條，詔與新定《刑統》三十卷並頒天下，參酌輕重為詳，世稱平允。太平興國中，增敕至十五卷，淳化中倍之。咸平中增至萬八千五百五十有五條，詔給事中柴成務等芟其繁亂，定可為敕者二百八十有六條，準律分十二門，總十一卷。又為《儀制令》一卷。當時便其簡易。大中祥符間。又增三十卷，千三百七十四條。又有《農田敕》五卷，與敕兼行。

Song law followed the Tang framework of statutes, ordinances, regulations, and forms, but as circumstances changed there came compiled edicts, and each bureau, circuit, prefecture, and county had edicts of its own besides. Early in the Jianlong reign, the court ordered Dou Yi of the Court of Judicial Review and others to submit the Compiled Edicts in four scrolls, 106 articles in all, and promulgated them empire-wide together with the newly revised thirty-scroll Penal Code. Because they carefully balanced severity and leniency, contemporaries praised them as fair. During Taiping Xingguo the edicts grew to fifteen scrolls; in the Chunhua era they doubled again. By the Xianping era they had swollen to 18,555 articles. The court ordered Supervising Secretary Chai Chengwu and others to prune the redundancies and fix 286 articles as proper edicts, arranged in twelve sections after the statutes, eleven scrolls in all. They also compiled the Ceremonial Regulations Ordinance in one scroll. People at the time welcomed its simplicity. During the Dazhong Xiangfu era. They added another thirty scrolls and 1,374 articles. There was also the Farmland Edicts in five scrolls, enforced alongside the main edicts.

仁宗嘗問輔臣曰：「或謂先朝詔令不可輕改，信然乎？」王曾曰：「此憸人惑上之言也。咸平之所刪，太宗詔令十存一二，去其繁密以便於民，何為不可？」於是詔中外言敕得失，命官修定，取咸平儀制令及制度約束之在敕者五百餘條，悉附令後，號曰《附令敕》。天聖七年編敕成，合《農田敕》為一書，視祥符敕損百有餘條。其麗于法者，大辟之屬十有七，流之屬三十有四，徒之屬百有六，杖之屬二百五十有八，笞之屬七十有六。又配隸之屬六十有三，大辟而下奏聽旨者七十有一。凡此，皆在律令外者也。既頒行，因下詔曰：「敕令者，治世之經，而數動搖，則眾聽滋惑，何以訓迪天下哉？自今有司毋得輒請刪改。有未便者，中書、樞密院以聞。」然至慶曆又復刪定，增五百條，別為《總例》一卷。後又修一司敕二千三百十有七條，一路敕千八百二十有七條，一州、一縣敕千四百五十有一條。其麗于法者，大辟之屬總三十有一，流之屬總二十有一，徒之屬總百有五，杖之屬總百六十有八，笞之屬總十有二，又配隸之屬總八十有一，大辟而下奏聽旨者總六十有四。凡此，又在編敕之外者也。

Emperor Renzong once asked his chief ministers, "Some say the previous reign's edicts must not be lightly altered—is that true?" Wang Zeng replied, "That is the talk of crafty men trying to mislead Your Majesty. The Xianping revision kept only one or two in ten of Taizong's edicts, cutting away dense and intricate provisions to benefit the people—why should that not be done?" The court then invited comment empire-wide on the edicts' strengths and faults and appointed officials to revise them. More than five hundred articles from the Xianping ceremonial ordinances and institutional rules that had stood in the edicts were appended to the ordinances and titled the Attached Ordinance Edicts. In the seventh year of Tiansheng the compiled edicts were finished, the Farmland Edicts were merged into a single work, and more than a hundred articles were cut compared with the Xiangfu code. Penalties tied to the statutes included 17 capital offenses, 34 exile offenses, 106 penal-servitude offenses, 258 staff-beatings, and 76 light-stick beatings. There were also 63 kinds of assigned labor, and 71 offenses from capital punishment downward that required memorial and imperial approval. All of these lay outside the statutes and ordinances. After promulgation the court issued an edict: "Edicts and ordinances are the warp of good government; if they are constantly shaken, the people grow confused—how can the realm be instructed? Henceforth officials must not on their own request deletions or revisions. If anything proves inconvenient, the Secretariat and the Bureau of Military Affairs shall report it." Yet by the Qingli era they revised again, adding five hundred articles and issuing a separate scroll of General Principles. Later they also revised bureau edicts to 2,317 articles, circuit edicts to 1,827, and prefectural and county edicts to 1,451. Penalties tied to the statutes totaled 31 capital offenses, 21 exile offenses, 105 penal servitude, 168 staff beatings, 12 light-stick beatings, 81 assigned labor, and 64 offenses from capital punishment downward requiring memorial and imperial approval. All of these again lay outside the compiled edicts.

嘉祐初，因樞密使韓琦言，內外吏兵奉祿無著令，乃命類次為祿令。三司以驛料名數，著為驛令。琦又言：「自慶曆四年，距嘉祐二年，敕增至四千餘條，前後牴牾。請詔中外，使言敕得失，如天聖故事。」七年，書成。總千八百三十四條，視慶曆敕大辟增六十，流增五十，徒增六十有一，杖增七十有三，笞增三十有八，又配隸增三十，大辟而下奏聽旨者增四十有六。又別為《續附令敕》三卷。

Early in the Jiayou reign, after Military Affairs Commissioner Han Qi observed that salaries for officials and soldiers had no fixed ordinance, the court ordered them classified into a Salary Ordinance. The Three Departments codified relay-station supplies and amounts as the Relay Ordinance. Qi also said, "From the fourth year of Qingli to the second year of Jiayou, edicts grew to more than four thousand articles, often contradicting one another. I ask that the court, as in the Tiansheng precedent, invite comment empire-wide on the edicts' strengths and faults." In the seventh year the compilation was finished. Altogether 1,834 articles; compared with the Qingli code, capital offenses rose by 60, exile by 50, penal servitude by 61, staff beatings by 73, light-stick beatings by 38, assigned labor by 30, and memorial cases from capital punishment downward by 46. They also issued the Continued Attached Ordinance Edicts in three scrolls.

神宗以律不足以周事情，凡律所不載者一斷以敕，乃更其目曰敕、令、格、式，而律恆存乎敕之外。熙寧初，置局修敕，詔中外言法不便者，集議更定，擇其可采者賞之。元豐中，始成書二十有六卷，復下二府參訂，然後頒行。帝留意法令，每有司進擬，多所是正。嘗謂：「法出於道，人能體道，則立法足以盡事。」又曰：「禁於已然之謂敕，禁於未然之謂令，設於此以待彼之謂格，使彼效之之謂式。修書者要當識此。」於是凡入笞、杖、徒、流、死，自名例以下至斷獄，十有二門，麗刑名輕重者，皆為敕。自品官以下至斷獄三十五門，約束禁止者，皆為令。命官之等十有七，吏、庶人之賞等七十有七，又有倍、全、分、釐之級凡五等，有等級高下者，皆為格。表奏、帳籍、關牒、符檄之類凡五卷，有體制模楷者，皆為式。

Emperor Shenzong held that statutes could not cover every circumstance; whatever the statutes omitted was to be decided solely by edict. He reorganized the categories as edicts, ordinances, regulations, and forms, while the statutes themselves remained subordinate to the edicts. Early in Xining the court set up a bureau to revise the edicts and invited empire-wide comment on inconvenient laws, assembling officials to revise them and rewarding proposals that were adopted. In the Yuanfeng era the work was first completed in twenty-six scrolls, sent to the Two Departments for joint revision, and only then promulgated. The emperor paid close attention to law; whenever officials submitted drafts, he often corrected them himself. He once said, "Law proceeds from the Way; if people can embody the Way, legislation alone can cover every affair." He also said, "What forbids what has already happened is an edict; what forbids what has not yet happened is an ordinance; what is set here to await action there is a regulation; what makes others emulate it is a form. Compilers must grasp this distinction." Thereupon everything from light-stick beating through staff beating, penal servitude, exile, and death—from General Principles through Trial and Judgment, twelve sections in all—whatever concerned the severity of punishment was classified as edict. From ranked officials through Trial and Judgment, thirty-five sections—whatever constrained or forbade conduct—were classified as ordinances. Seventeen grades for commissioned officials, seventy-seven reward grades for clerks and commoners, and five levels of double, full, fractional, and minute shares—whatever involved graded distinctions—were classified as regulations. Memorials, registers, passes, and dispatches and the like, five scrolls in all—whatever had prescribed formats—were classified as forms.

元祐初，中丞劉摯言：「元豐編修敕令，舊載敕者多移之令，蓋違敕法重，違令罪輕，此足以見神宗仁厚之德。而有司不能推廣，增多條目，離析舊制，因一言一事，輒立一法，意苛文晦，不足以該事物之情。行之幾時，蓋已屢變。宜取慶曆、嘉祐以來新舊敕參照，去取刪正，以成一代之典。」右諫議孫覺亦言煩細難以檢用，乃詔摯等刊定。哲宗親政，不專用元祐近例，稍復熙寧、元豐之制。自是用法以後衝前，改更紛然，而刑制紊矣。

Early in Yuanyou, Vice Censor-in-Chief Liu Zhi said, "In the Yuanfeng revision, many provisions formerly classified as edicts were moved to ordinances, because violating an edict carried heavier penalties than violating an ordinance—enough to show Emperor Shenzong's benevolence. Yet officials failed to extend that spirit: they multiplied articles, fragmented old institutions, and for every word or incident promptly enacted a new rule—harsh in intent, obscure in wording, unable to cover real circumstances. Within a short time it had already been changed again and again. The court should compare old and new edicts from Qingli and Jiayou onward, revise them by selection and deletion, and complete the code of the age." Right Remonstrance Adviser Sun Jue also complained that the code had grown too detailed to use, and the court ordered Liu Zhi and others to revise it. When Emperor Zhezong took personal rule, he no longer relied solely on recent Yuanyou precedents but gradually restored Xining and Yuanfeng institutions. From then on later provisions constantly overrode earlier ones, revisions multiplied in confusion, and the penal system fell into disorder.

高宗播遷，斷例散逸，建炎以前，凡所施行，類出人吏省記。三年四月，始命取嘉祐條法與政和敕令對修而用之。嘉祐法與見行不同者，自官制、役法外，賞格從重，條約從輕。紹興元年，書成，號《紹興敕令格式》，而吏胥省記者亦復引用。監察御史劉一止言：「法令具在，吏猶得以為姦，今一切用其所省記，欺蔽何所不至！」十一月，乃詔左右司、敕令所刊定省記之文頒之。時在京通用敕內，有已嘗衝改不該引用之文，因大理正張柄言，亦詔刪削。十年，右僕射秦檜上之。然自檜專政，率用都堂批狀、指揮行事，雜入吏部續降條冊之中，修書者有所畏忌，不敢刪削，至與成法並立。吏部尚書周麟之言：「非天子不議禮，不制度，不考文。」乃詔削去之。至乾道時，臣僚言：「紹興以來，續降指揮無慮數千，牴牾難以考據。」詔大理寺官詳難，定其可否，類申刑部，以所隸事目分送六部長貳參詳。六年，刑部侍郎汪大猷等上其書，號《乾道敕令格式》，八年，頒之。當是時，法令雖具，然吏一切以例從事，法當然而無例，則事皆泥而不行，甚至隱例以壞法，賄賂既行，乃為具例。

When Emperor Gaozong fled south, precedent cases were scattered and lost; before Jianyan, whatever was enforced mostly came from clerks' private notes. In the fourth month of the third year the court first ordered the Jiayou code and the Zhenghe edicts revised against each other and put into use. Where the Jiayou code differed from current practice, except for the official system and labor-service laws, reward scales followed the stricter version and treaty provisions the lighter. In the first year of Shaoxing the compilation was finished as the Shaoxing Edicts, Ordinances, Regulations, and Forms, yet clerks again cited their private notes. Investigating Censor Liu Yizhi said, "The laws are all on the books, yet clerks still commit fraud; if everything now relies on their private notes, what deception will they not attempt!" In the eleventh month the court ordered the Left and Right Offices and the Edict Bureau to revise the memoranda and promulgate them. Among the edicts commonly used in the capital were passages already superseded and unfit for citation; after Rectifier Zhang Bing of the Court of Judicial Review spoke up, the court ordered them deleted. In the tenth year Right Vice Director Qin Hui presented the work to the throne. Yet once Qin dominated the government, he routinely governed by Grand Council rescripts and directives, which were mixed into the Ministry of Personnel's continuing registers; compilers feared him and dared not delete them, until they stood alongside established law. Minister of Personnel Zhou Lin said, "Only the Son of Heaven may deliberate on ritual, establish institutions, and examine culture." The court then ordered them removed. By the Qiandao era officials said, "Since Shaoxing, continuing directives number in the thousands; they contradict one another and are impossible to verify." The court ordered Court of Judicial Review officials to examine them, decide what was acceptable, classify them for the Ministry of Justice, and send each subject to the heads of the Six Ministries for joint review. In the sixth year Vice Minister Wang Dayou of the Ministry of Justice and others presented the work as the Qiandao Edicts, Ordinances, Regulations, and Forms; it was promulgated in the eighth year. At that time, though the laws were complete, clerks handled everything by precedent; when the law required action but no precedent existed, business stalled entirely—some even concealed precedents to subvert the law, preparing a precedent only after a bribe was paid.

淳熙初，詔除刑部許用乾道刑名斷例，司勳許用獲盜推賞例，?乾道經置條例事指揮，其餘並不得引例。既而臣僚言乾道新書，尚多牴牾，詔戶部尚書蔡洸詳定之，凡刪改九百餘條，號《淳熙敕令格式》。帝復以其書散漫，用法之際，官不暇徧閱，吏因得以容姦，令敕令所分門編類為一書，名曰《淳熙條法事類》，前此法令之所未有也。四年七月，頒之。淳熙末，議者猶以新書尚多遺闕，有司引用，間有便於人情者。復令刑部詳定，迄光宗之世未成。慶元四年，右丞相京鏜始上其書，為百二十卷，號《慶元敕令格式》。

Early in Chunxi an edict permitted only three exceptions to the ban on citing precedent: the Ministry of Justice might use Qiandao criminal precedent cases, the Ministry of Personnel might use reward precedents for catching thieves, and Qiandao special regulations and matter directives; all other citation of precedent was forbidden. Soon officials complained that the Qiandao code still contained many contradictions; the court ordered Minister of Revenue Cai Guang to revise it, deleting and altering more than nine hundred articles, and titled the result the Chunxi Edicts, Ordinances, Regulations, and Forms. The emperor found the code too scattered: officials could not read it all when applying the law, and clerks exploited the gaps. He ordered the Edict Bureau to arrange it by subject in a single work, the Chunxi Classified Articles of Law by Subject—something no earlier code had attempted. It was promulgated in the seventh month of the fourth year. Late in Chunxi critics still held that the new code had many gaps; when officials cited it, they sometimes found provisions that suited human sentiment better than the code. The court again ordered the Ministry of Justice to revise it, but the work was still unfinished by the reign of Emperor Guangzong. In the fourth year of Qingyuan Right Chancellor Jing Tang first presented the work in 120 scrolls as the Qingyuan Edicts, Ordinances, Regulations, and Forms.

理宗寶慶初，敕令所言：「自慶元新書之行，今二十九年，前指揮殆非一事，或舊法該括未盡，文意未明，須用續降參酌者；或舊法元無，而後因事立為成法者；或已有舊法，而續降不必引用者；或一時權宜，而不可為常法者。條目滋繁，無所遵守，乞攷定之。」淳祐二年四月，敕令所上其書，名《淳祐敕令格式》。十一年，又取慶元法與淳祐新書刪潤。其間修改者百四十條，創入者四百條，增入者五十條，刪去者十七條，為四百三十卷。度宗以後，遵而行之，無所更定矣。其餘一司、一路、一州、一縣敕，前後時有增損，不可勝紀云。

Early in Baqing under Emperor Lizong, the Edict Bureau reported, "Twenty-nine years have passed since the Qingyuan code was issued; earlier directives are innumerable—some old laws do not fully cover cases, the wording is unclear, and continuing directives must be consulted; some matters had no old law but later became standing law because of events; some already had old law and need not cite continuing directives; some were temporary expedients unfit to serve as standing law. Articles have multiplied until nothing can be followed—we beg that they be examined and revised." In the fourth month of the second year of Chunyou the Edict Bureau presented the Chunyou Edicts, Ordinances, Regulations, and Forms. In the eleventh year they again revised the Qingyuan code and the Chunyou new book by deletion and polish. They revised 140 articles, added 400 new ones, supplemented 50, deleted 17, and produced 430 scrolls in all. After Emperor Duzong the court followed it without further revision. As for bureau, circuit, prefectural, and county edicts, additions and reductions over time are beyond counting.

五季衰亂，禁罔煩密。宋興，削除苛峻，累朝有所更定。法吏寖用儒臣，務存仁恕，凡用法不悖而宜于時者著之。太祖受禪，始定折杖之制。凡流刑四：加役流，脊杖二十，配役三年；流三千里，脊杖二十，二千五百里，脊杖十八，二千里，脊杖十七，並配役一年。凡徒刑五：徒三年，脊杖二十；徒二年半，脊杖十八；二年，脊杖十七；一年半，脊杖十五；一年，脊杖十三。凡杖刑五：杖一百，臀杖二十；九十，臀杖十八；八十，臀杖十七；七十，臀杖十五；六十，臀杖十三。凡笞刑五：笞五十，臀杖十下；四十、三十，臀杖八下；二十、十，臀杖七下。常行官杖如周顯德五年制，長三尺五寸，大頭闊不過二寸，厚及小頭徑不得過九分。徒、流、笞通用常行杖，徒罪決而不役。

During the decline and chaos of the Five Dynasties, prohibitions were numerous and intricate. When the Song arose, harsh provisions were removed, and successive reigns revised the code. Legal offices gradually drew on Confucian scholars, striving to preserve benevolence and leniency; whatever in the application of law was sound and suited the times is recorded here. When Taizu accepted the throne, he first established the system of commuted corporal punishment. Exile punishments numbered four: augmented labor exile carried twenty strokes on the back and three years of assigned labor; Exile to three thousand li meant twenty strokes on the back; to two thousand five hundred li, eighteen strokes; to two thousand li, seventeen strokes—all with one year of assigned labor. Penal servitude had five grades: three years' servitude brought twenty strokes on the back; Two and a half years' servitude, eighteen strokes on the back; Two years, seventeen strokes on the back; One and a half years, fifteen strokes on the back; One year, thirteen strokes on the back. Staff beatings had five grades: a sentence of one hundred strokes meant twenty strokes on the buttocks; Ninety strokes, eighteen on the buttocks; Eighty strokes, seventeen on the buttocks; Seventy strokes, fifteen on the buttocks; Sixty strokes, thirteen on the buttocks. Whipping punishments had five grades: fifty strokes meant ten blows on the buttocks; Forty and thirty strokes, eight blows on the buttocks; Twenty and ten strokes, seven blows on the buttocks. The standard beating staff followed the Zhou Xiande 5 regulations: three feet five inches long, no more than two inches across at the broad end, and no more than nine tenths of an inch thick or in diameter at the narrow end. Penal servitude, exile, and whipping all used the standard staff; for servitude offenses the beating was administered but labor service was waived.

先是，藩鎮跋扈，專殺為威，朝廷姑息，率置不問，刑部按覆之職廢矣。建隆三年，令諸州奏大辟案，須刑部詳覆。尋如舊制，大理寺詳斷，而後覆于刑部。凡諸州獄，則錄事參軍與司法掾參斷之。自是，內外折獄蔽罪，皆有官以相覆察。又懼刑部、大理寺用法之失，別置審刑院讞之。吏一坐深，或終身不進，由是皆務持平。

Earlier, military governors had grown overbearing, wielding arbitrary execution as a threat; the court indulged them and generally looked the other way, and the Ministry of Justice's review function fell into disuse. In Jianlong 3, an edict required all prefectures reporting capital cases to submit them for detailed review by the Ministry of Justice. Before long the old procedure was restored: the Court of Judicial Review would examine and decide cases, which were then reviewed by the Ministry of Justice. In prefectural prisons, the recording secretary and the judicial clerk jointly adjudicated cases. Henceforth, whether at court or in the provinces, trial and concealment of offenses were subject to mutual review by designated officials. Fearing further misapplication of the law by the Ministry of Justice and the Court of Judicial Review, a separate Office of Reviewing Punishments was established to review verdicts. An official who once received a severe penalty might never advance again; from then on, all strove to hold the middle ground.

唐建中令，竊盜贓滿三匹者死。武宗時，竊盜贓滿千錢者死。宣宗立，乃罷之。漢乾祐以來，用法益峻，民盜一錢抵極法。周初，深懲其失，復遵建中之制。帝猶以其太重，嘗增為錢三千，陌以八十為限。既而詔曰：「禁民為非，乃設法令，臨下以簡，必務哀矜。竊盜之生，本非巨。近朝立制，重於律文，非愛人之旨也。自今竊盜贓滿五貫足陌者死。」

Under Tang's Jianzhong edict, theft of goods worth three bolts of cloth or more was capital. Under Emperor Wuzong, theft of one thousand cash or more was capital. When Emperor Xuanzong came to the throne, the provision was abolished. From the Later Han Qianyou era onward, the law grew ever harsher—a commoner who stole a single coin could face the death penalty. Early in the Zhou dynasty, deeply regretting this excess, the court restored the Jianzhong standard. The emperor still found it too harsh and once raised the threshold to three thousand cash, counting a full string at eighty coins. Soon afterward an edict declared: "Laws exist to restrain the people from wrongdoing; in governing those below, keep matters simple and always show compassion. Petty theft by its nature is not a grave crime. Recent dynasties had set penalties heavier than the code itself—hardly the spirit of caring for the people. Henceforth, theft of five full strings of cash or more shall be capital."

舊法，強盜持杖，雖不傷人，皆棄市。又詔但不傷人者，止計贓論。令諸州獲盜，非狀驗明白，未得掠治。其當訊者，先具白長吏，得判乃訊之。凡有司擅掠囚者，論為私罪。時天下甫定，刑典弛廢，吏不明習律令，牧守又多武人，率意用法。金州防禦使仇超等坐故入死罪，除名，流海島，自是人知奉法矣。

Under the old law, armed robbers were executed in the marketplace even when no one was harmed. Another edict provided that when no one was injured, the penalty was determined solely by the value of the stolen goods. Prefectures were ordered not to torture captured thieves unless the facts had been clearly established. When interrogation was required, officials had first to report to the chief magistrate and could question the prisoner only after receiving written approval. Any official who tortured prisoners without authorization was charged with a private offense. The realm had only just been pacified; the penal code had fallen into neglect; officials were poorly versed in statutes; and many prefects and governors were military men who applied the law as they pleased. Qiu Chao, defense commissioner of Jin Prefecture, and others were convicted of deliberately imposing capital punishment, stripped of rank, and exiled to island penal colonies; from then on, people understood they must obey the law.

開寶二年五月，帝以暑氣方盛，深念縲繫之苦，乃下手詔：「兩京諸州，令長吏督獄掾，五日一檢視，洒掃獄戶，洗滌杻械。貧不能自存者給飲食，病者給醫藥，輕繫即時決遣，毋淹滯。」自是，每仲夏申敕官吏，歲以為常。帝每親錄囚徒，專事欽恤。凡御史、大理官屬，尤嚴選擇。嘗謂侍御史知雜馮炳曰：「朕每讀《漢書》，見張釋之、于定國治獄，天下無民，此所望於卿也。」賜金紫以勉之。八年，廣州言：「前詔竊盜贓至死者奏裁，嶺南遐遠，覆奏稽滯，請不俟報。」帝覽奏，惻然曰：「海隅習俗，貪獷穿窬，固其常也。」因詔：「嶺南民犯竊盜，贓滿五貫至十貫者，決杖、黥面、配役，十貫以上乃死。」太宗在御，常躬聽斷，在京獄有疑者，多臨決之，每能燭見隱微。太平興國六年下詔曰：「諸州大獄，長吏不親決，胥吏旁緣為姦，逮捕證佐，滋蔓踰年而獄未具。自今長吏每五日一慮囚，情得者即決之。」復制聽獄之限，大事四十日，中事二十日，小事十日，不他逮捕而易決者，毋過三日。後又定令：「決獄違限，準官書稽程律論，踰四十日則奏裁。事須證逮致稽緩者，所在以其事聞。」然州縣禁繫，往往猶以根窮為名，追擾輒至破家。因江西轉運副使張齊賢言，令外縣罪人五日一具禁放數白州。州獄別置曆，長吏檢察，三五日一引問疏理，月具奏上。刑部閱其禁多者，命官即往決遣，滯則降黜州之官吏。會兩浙運司亦言：「部內州繫囚滿獄，長吏輒隱落，妄言獄空，蓋懼朝廷詰其淹滯。」乃詔：「妄奏獄空及隱落囚數，必加深譴，募告者賞之。」

In the fifth month of Kaibao 2, with summer heat at its peak, the emperor, deeply mindful of the suffering of the imprisoned, personally issued an edict: "In the two capitals and all prefectures, chief officials shall supervise prison clerks in inspecting the jails every five days, sweeping the gates, and washing shackles and restraints. The destitute were to receive food and drink; the sick, medicine; those held on minor charges were to be tried and released at once, without delay." Thereafter, every midsummer officials received such admonitions, and the practice became annual. The emperor personally reviewed prisoners each year, devoting himself entirely to compassionate judgment. Officials of the Censorate and the Court of Judicial Review were chosen with particular care. He once told the supervising censor Feng Bing: "When I read the Book of Han and see how Zhang Shizhi and Yu Dingguo presided over the courts so that no one in the realm suffered wrongful conviction, that is what I expect of you." He bestowed gold and purple insignia to encourage him. In the eighth year, Guangzhou reported: "The earlier edict required capital theft cases to be submitted for imperial approval; Lingnan is remote, and the round of review causes long delays—we ask permission to proceed without awaiting a reply." Reading the memorial, the emperor said with compassion: "In the coastal south, greed and petty burglary are simply the way of things." He then decreed: "For theft in Lingnan, booty of five to ten strings shall bring beating, facial tattooing, and assigned labor; only amounts above ten strings shall be capital. When Taizong reigned, he often heard cases in person; doubtful cases in the capital prisons he frequently decided himself, and he could always see through what was hidden. In Taiping Xingguo 6 an edict declared: "In major cases across the prefectures, chief magistrates fail to decide them personally; clerks exploit the gaps to commit abuses, witnesses are arrested, and cases drag on for more than a year without resolution. Henceforth chief magistrates shall review prisoners every five days and decide cases immediately when the facts are clear." Time limits for hearing cases were restored: forty days for major cases, twenty for medium, ten for minor; cases needing no further arrests and easily decided were not to exceed three days. Later a regulation provided: "Exceeding time limits in deciding cases was punishable under the statute on delay in official documents; cases exceeding forty days were submitted for imperial approval. When delay was caused by the need to summon witnesses, the locality was to report the circumstances." Yet prefectures and counties still often detained people under the pretext of tracing cases to their roots, and the pursuit and harassment frequently ruined families. On the recommendation of Zhang Qixian, vice transport commissioner of Jiangxi, outer counties were ordered to report detention and release figures to the prefecture every five days. Prefectural prisons were to keep separate registers; chief magistrates were to inspect them, summon and review prisoners every three to five days, and submit monthly reports. When the Ministry of Justice found excessive detentions, it dispatched officials to decide and release cases at once; delay brought demotion for the prefecture's officials. At the same time the Two Zhe transport office reported: "Prisoners fill the jails in our prefectures; chief magistrates conceal the numbers and falsely claim empty prisons, fearing the court will question their delays." An edict followed: "False reports of empty prisons or concealed prisoner counts would bring severe punishment; informants would be rewarded."

開封女子李嘗擊登聞鼓，自言無兒息，身且病，一旦死，家業無所付，詔本府隨所欲裁置之。李無它親，獨有父，有司因繫之。李又詣登聞，訴父被縶，帝駭曰：「此事豈當禁繫，輦轂之下，尚或如此。又下至廣，安得無枉濫乎？朕恨不能親決四方之獄，固不辭勞爾！」即日遣殿中侍御史李範等十四人，分往江南、兩浙、四川、荊湖、嶺南審決刑獄。吏之怠者，劾其罪以聞；其臨事明敏、刑獄無滯者，亦以名上。始令諸州十日一慮囚。

A Kaifeng woman surnamed Li once struck the petition drum, saying she had no heirs, was ill, and feared that if she died her estate would have no recipient; the court ordered the prefecture to dispose of her property as she wished. Li had no other kin, only a father; the authorities therefore detained him. Li returned to the petition hall to complain that her father had been bound; the emperor said in alarm: "How could such a matter warrant detention? Even at the capital, such things still happen. And in the wider realm, how could there be no wrongful abuse? I regret that I cannot personally decide cases throughout the realm—I certainly do not shrink from the effort!" That same day he dispatched fourteen palace censors including Li Fan to Jiangnan, the Two Zhe, Sichuan, Jinghu, and Lingnan to review and decide criminal cases. Negligent officials were impeached and reported; Those who handled affairs with clarity and kept cases moving were also reported by name for commendation. For the first time, prefectures were ordered to review prisoners every ten days.

帝嘗謂宰相曰：「御史臺，閤門之前，四方綱準之地。頗聞臺中鞫獄，御史多不躬親，垂簾雍容，以自尊大。鞫按之任，委在胥吏，求無濫，豈可得也？」乃詔御史決獄必躬親，毋得專任胥吏。又嘗諭宰臣曰：「每閱大理奏案，節目小未備，移文按覆，動涉數千里外，禁繫淹久，甚可憐也。卿等詳酌，非人命所係，即量罪區分，勿須再鞫。」始令諸州笞、杖罪不須證逮者，長吏即決之，勿復付所司。羣臣受詔鞫獄，獄既具，騎置來上，有司斷已，復騎置下之州。凡上疑獄，詳覆之而無疑狀，官吏並同違制之坐。其應奏疑案，亦騎置以聞。

The emperor once told the chief ministers: "The Censorate stands before the Inner Court gate—it is where the standards of the entire realm converge. I have heard that in the Censorate's interrogations, many censors do not attend in person but sit behind curtains in stately ease to magnify their own importance. The duty of interrogation is left to clerks—how can one hope to avoid wrongful abuse?" An edict followed requiring censors to decide cases in person and not leave the work entirely to clerks. He also told the chief ministers: "When I review cases from the Court of Judicial Review, if minor details are incomplete, documents are sent back for review—often to places thousands of li away—and detainees languish for long periods. It is deeply pitiable. Consider carefully: when human life is not at stake, distinguish punishments according to the offense and do not require re-interrogation." Prefectures were first ordered that whipping and staff-beating offenses requiring no witnesses were to be decided at once by the chief magistrate, without referral to subordinate offices. When ministers received edicts to interrogate cases, completed dossiers were sent up by courier relay; after the relevant office decided them, couriers relayed the verdicts back to the prefectures. When doubtful cases were submitted, if detailed review found no grounds for doubt, the officials involved were all charged equally with violating regulations. Doubtful cases requiring imperial submission were also reported by courier relay.

二年，令竊盜滿十貫者，奏裁；七貫，決杖、黥面、隸牢城；五貫，配役三年；三貫，二年；一貫，一年。它如舊制。八月，復分遣使臣按巡諸道。帝曰：「朕於獄犴之寄，夙夜焦勞，慮有滯耳。」十月，親錄京城繫囚，遂至日旰。近臣或諫勞苦過甚，帝曰：「儻惠及無告，使獄訟平允，不致枉橈，朕意深以為適，何勞之有？」因謂宰相曰：「中外臣僚，若皆留心政務，天下安有不治者。古人宰一邑，守一郡，使飛蝗避境，猛虎渡河。況能惠養黎庶，申理滯，豈不感召和氣乎？朕每自勤不怠，此志必無改易。或云有司細故，帝王不當親決，朕意則異乎是。若以尊極自居，則下情不能上達矣。」自是祁寒盛暑或雨雪稍愆，輒親錄繫囚，多所原減。諸道則遣官按決，率以為常，後世遵行不廢，見各帝《紀》。

In the second year, theft of ten strings or more required submission for imperial approval; Seven strings brought beating, facial tattooing, and assignment to the penal colony; Five strings, three years of assigned labor; Three strings, two years; One string, one year. Other provisions followed the old system. In the eighth month, envoys were again dispatched to inspect the various circuits. The emperor said: "In my charge over the prisons, I am anxious day and night, fearing only that cases may stagnate." In the tenth month, he personally reviewed the capital's detainees, continuing until sundown. Close attendants sometimes urged that the effort was excessive; the emperor replied: "If I can help those with no one to plead for them, make lawsuits fair, and prevent wrongful distortion, my heart is deeply satisfied—what effort is that?" He then told the chief ministers: "If officials throughout the court and realm all attend to governance, how could the realm fail to prosper? The ancients who governed a single district or held a single commandery could make locusts avoid their borders and tigers cross rivers unharmed. How much more, if one can nurture the people with kindness and clear up delays—would that not summon harmonious fortune? I constantly exert myself without slackening; this resolve shall never change. Some say minor administrative matters are not for the emperor to decide in person; my view differs. If one holds oneself aloof in supreme dignity, the concerns of those below cannot reach the throne." Thereafter, whenever severe cold, intense heat, or slight irregularity in rain and snow occurred, he personally reviewed detainees and often granted pardons and reductions. In the circuits, officials were sent to investigate and decide cases; the practice became routine and was never abandoned by later generations—see each emperor's Basic Annals.

先是，太祝刁衎上疏言：「古者投姦人於四裔，今乃遠方囚人，盡歸象闕，配務役。神京天子所居，豈可使流囚於此聚役。禮曰：『刑人于市，與眾棄之。』則知黃屋紫宸之中，非行法用刑之所。望自今外處罪人，勿許解送上京，亦不留於諸務充役。御前不行決罰之刑，殿前引見司鉗黥法具、敕杖，皆以付御史、廷尉、京府。或出中使，或命法官，具禮監科，以重明刑謹法之意。」帝覽疏甚悅，降詔褒答，然不能從也。

Previously, Grand Invocator Diao Yan submitted a memorial: "In antiquity, debauched criminals were banished to the four borderlands; now prisoners from distant regions are all brought to the imperial capital and assigned to corvée labor. The sacred capital is the Son of Heaven's residence—how can we gather exiled convicts here for forced labor? The Rites state: 'Execute criminals in the marketplace and cast them out before the people.' From this we know that within the imperial palace and the Forbidden City is no place to enforce the law or carry out punishments. I ask that from now on criminals from outside the capital not be escorted to the capital, nor kept at government offices to serve as laborers. Capital punishment must not be carried out in the emperor's presence; the shackles, branding tools, and imperial cudgels of the Palace Reception Office should all be entrusted to the censorate, the tribunal, and the capital prefectures. Whether by dispatching palace emissaries or appointing judicial officers, punishments should be carried out with full ceremony and oversight, to underscore the intent to clarify punishments and uphold the law." The emperor read the memorial with great pleasure and issued an edict commending and answering it, but could not adopt his recommendations.

三年，始用儒士為司理判官，令諸州訊囚，不須眾官共視，申長吏得判乃訊囚。刑部張佖言：「官吏枉斷死罪者，請稍峻條章，以責其明慎。」始定制：應斷獄失入死刑者，不得以官減贖，檢法官、判官皆削一任，而檢法仍贖銅十斤，長吏則停任。尋置刑部詳覆官六員，專閱天下所上案牘，勿復遣鞫獄吏。置御史臺推勘官二十人，皆以京朝官為之。凡諸州有大獄，則乘傳就鞫。陛辭日，帝必臨遣諭之曰：「無滋蔓，無留滯。」咸賜以裝錢。還，必召問所推事狀，著為定令。自是，大理寺杖罪以下，須刑部詳覆。又所駁天下案牘未具者，亦令詳覆乃奏。判刑部李昌齡言：「舊制，大理定刑送部，詳覆官入法狀，主判官下斷語，乃具奏。至開寶六年，闕法直官，致兩司共斷定覆詞。今宜令大理所斷案牘，寺官印署送詳覆。得當，則送寺共奏，否即疏駁以聞。」

In the third year, Confucian scholars were first appointed as judicial assessors; prefectures were told that in interrogating prisoners, many officials need not observe together—instead, the chief official had to be notified and give approval before interrogation could proceed. Zhang Bi of the Ministry of Justice said: "When officials wrongly impose the death penalty, I ask that the regulations be tightened somewhat to hold them to a standard of clarity and care." Regulations were then established: officials who wrongly imposed the death penalty in adjudicating cases could not commute punishment by rank; legal examiners and assessors each lost one tenure, examiners still paid a ten-jin copper fine, and chief officials were suspended. Six Ministry of Justice review officials were soon established to examine case documents submitted from across the realm, and judicial interrogation officers were no longer dispatched. Twenty Censorate investigation officers were established, all drawn from capital officials. Whenever a prefecture had a major case, they traveled by express relay to investigate it. On the day they took leave at court, the emperor always came in person to send them off and instructed: "Do not let cases proliferate; do not let them drag on." All were granted travel funds. On their return, the emperor always summoned them to question them about the cases they had investigated, and this was established as a fixed regulation. From then on, all Court of Judicial Review cases below flogging required Ministry of Justice review. Rejected case documents from across the realm that were incomplete likewise had to undergo review before being memorialized. Li Changling of the Ministry of Justice said: "Under the old system, when the Court of Judicial Review fixed a sentence and forwarded the case, the review official entered the legal analysis, the chief assessor rendered the decision, and only then was the memorial submitted. By the sixth year of Kaibao, with no direct legal officer in place, both offices jointly drafted the review language. It is now appropriate to require that cases adjudicated by the Court of Judicial Review be stamped and signed by court officials before being sent for review. If correct, forward them to the court for joint memorialization; if not, submit a detailed rejection memorial."

淳化初，始置諸路提點刑獄司，凡管內州府十日一報囚帳，有疑獄未決，即馳傳往視之。州縣稽留不決，按讞不實，長吏則劾奏，佐史、小吏許便宜按劾從事。帝又慮大理、刑部吏舞文巧詆，置審刑院於禁中，以樞密直學士李昌齡知院事，兼置詳議官六員。凡獄上奏，先達審刑院，印訖，付大理寺、刑部斷覆以聞。乃下審刑院詳議申覆，裁決訖，以付中書省。當，即下之；其未允者，宰相覆以聞，始命論決。蓋重慎之至也。

At the start of the Chunhua era, circuit prison-supervision offices were first established; prefectures and commanderies within each jurisdiction reported prisoner registers every ten days, and when doubtful cases remained unresolved, officials rode express relay to inspect them. When prefectures and counties delayed decisions or investigations did not match the facts, chief officials were impeached; assistant clerks and petty officers were permitted to impeach as circumstances warranted. The emperor also feared that Court of Judicial Review and Ministry of Justice clerks twisted documents and brought crafty indictments; he established the Office for Review of Punishments within the palace, with Privy Council academician Li Changling as director, and six deliberation officials besides. All cases submitted for memorialization first went to the Office for Review of Punishments; after stamping, they were sent to the Court of Judicial Review and Ministry of Justice for adjudication and review before being reported. They were then sent to the Office for Review of Punishments for deliberation and re-review; once a decision was reached, the cases went to the Secretariat. If approved, they were immediately sent down; Those not approved were reported again by the chief ministers, and only then was execution ordered. Such was the degree of caution applied.

凡大理寺決天下案牘，大事限二十五日，中事二十日，小事十日。審刑院詳覆，大事十五日，中事十日，小事五日。三年，詔御史臺鞫徒以上罪，獄具，令尚書丞郎、兩省給舍以上一人親往慮問。尋又詔：「獄無大小，自中丞以下，皆臨鞫問，不得專責所司。」自端拱以來，諸州司理參軍，皆帝自選擇，民有詣闕稱者，亦遣臺使乘傳按鞫，數年之間，刑罰清省矣。既而諸路提點刑獄司未嘗有所平反，詔悉罷之，歸其事轉運司。

The Court of Judicial Review's time limits for adjudicating cases from across the realm were twenty-five days for major cases, twenty for medium cases, and ten for minor ones. The Office for Review of Punishments allowed fifteen days for major cases, ten for medium cases, and five for minor ones. In the third year, an edict ordered that when the Censorate finished interrogating offenses of penal servitude or above, one Vice Minister, Director, or drafter of edicts from the two secretariats or higher had to go in person to examine and question the prisoner. Soon another edict stated: "Cases great and small—from the Vice Censor-in-Chief down, all must personally conduct interrogations and may not leave the matter solely to the responsible office." From the Duan Gong era on, judicial officers in the prefectures were all personally chosen by the emperor; when commoners came to court to petition, Censorate envoys were also sent by express relay to investigate; within a few years, punishments became clearer and lighter. Before long, because the circuit prison-supervision offices had never overturned a single case, an edict abolished them all and returned their duties to the transport commissions.

至道二年，帝聞諸州所斷大辟，情可疑者，懼為有司所駁，不敢上其獄。迺詔死事有可疑者，具獄申轉運司，擇部內詳練格律者令決之，須奏者乃奏。

In the second year of Zhidao, the emperor learned that when prefectures decided capital cases with doubtful circumstances, officials feared rejection by higher offices and did not dare submit them. An edict was then issued: doubtful death cases were to be submitted in full to the transport commission, which would choose someone well versed in statutes to decide them—only cases requiring memorialization were to be memorialized.

真宗性寬慈，尤慎刑辟。嘗謂宰相曰：「執法之吏，不可輕授。有不稱職者，當責舉主，以懲其濫。」審刑院舉詳議官，就刑部試斷案三十二道，取引用詳明者。審刑院每奏案，令先具事狀，親覽之，翌日，乃候進止，裁處輕重，必當其罪。咸平四年，從黃州守王禹偁之請，諸路置病囚院，徒、流以上有疾者處之，餘責保于外。景德元年，詔：「諸道州軍斷獄，內有宣敕不定刑名，止言當行極斷者，所在即寘大辟，頗乖平允。自今凡言處斷、重斷、極斷、決配、朝典之類，未得論決，具獄以聞。」四年，復置諸路提點刑獄官。先是，帝出筆記六事，其一曰：「勤恤民隱，遴柬庶官，朕無日不念也。所慮四方刑獄官吏，未盡得人，一夫受，即召災沴。今軍民事務，雖有轉運使，且地遠無由周知。先帝嘗選朝臣為諸路提點刑獄，今可復置，仍以使臣副之，命中書、樞密院擇官。」又曰：「河北、陝西，地控邊要，尤必得人，須性度平和有執守者。」親選太常博士陳綱、李及，自餘擬名以聞，咸引對於長春殿遣之。內出御前印紙為曆，書其績效，代還，議功行賞。如刑獄枉濫不能擿舉，官吏曠不能彈奏，務從畏避者，寘以深罪。知審刑院朱巽上言：「官吏因公事受財，證左明白，望論以枉法，其罪至死者，加役流。」從之。御史臺嘗鞫殺人賊，獄具，知雜王隨請臠咼之，帝曰：「五刑自有常制，何為慘毒也。」入內供奉官楊守珍使陝西，督捕盜賊，因請「擒獲強盜至死者，望以付臣凌遲，用戒凶惡」。詔：「捕賊送所屬，依法論決，毋用凌遲。」凌遲者，先斷其支體，乃抉其吭，當時之極法也。蓋真宗仁恕，而慘酷之刑，祖宗亦未嘗用。

Emperor Zhenzong was by nature lenient and compassionate, and especially cautious in applying capital punishment. He once told the chief ministers: "Officers who enforce the law must not be appointed lightly. When any prove unfit, the recommender should be held accountable, to punish careless nomination." The Office for Review of Punishments selected deliberation officials by testing them at the Ministry of Justice on thirty-two sample cases, choosing those whose legal citations were thorough and clear. Whenever the Office for Review of Punishments memorialized a case, the facts were first fully presented for the emperor's personal review; the next day he awaited his decision, and in fixing severity the punishment had to fit the crime. In the fourth year of Xianping, at the request of Huangzhou prefect Wang Yucheng, sick-prisoner wards were established in all circuits; convicts sentenced to penal servitude, exile, or above who fell ill were housed there, while others were released on bail. In the first year of Jingde, an edict stated: "When prefectures and military commands adjudicate cases, some imperial orders do not specify the punishment but only say 'shall be executed to the utmost'—local offices immediately impose death, which greatly violates fairness. Henceforth, for any order using terms such as execution, heavy execution, utmost execution, exile by decree, or court punishment, local offices may not decide on their own but must submit the complete case for imperial review." In the fourth year, circuit prison-supervision officials were reestablished. Earlier, the emperor issued a written note on six matters; the first read: "Diligently tending the people's hidden grievances and carefully selecting officials—I think of this every day without fail. What I fear is that prison officials throughout the realm are not all fit for their posts; when one person suffers injustice, calamity is summoned at once. For military and civilian affairs today, although transport commissioners exist, the distances are great and there is no way to know everything. The previous emperor once selected court officials as circuit prison supervisors; they may now be reestablished, with envoy-officials as deputies, and the Secretariat and Privy Council ordered to choose the men." Another item read: "Hebei and Shaanxi, guarding critical border regions, especially require the right men—men of even temperament and steadfast principle." He personally selected Grandees of Ceremonies Chen Gang and Li Ji; for the rest, proposed names were reported; all were granted audience at the Changchun Hall and dispatched. The palace issued sealed record books bearing the imperial seal to track their performance; on their return, merit was assessed and rewards granted. If they failed to expose wrongful abuse in prisons or impeach negligent officials, and deliberately shrank from their duties, they were punished severely. Zhu Xun, director of the Office for Review of Punishments, submitted: "When officials accept bribes in the course of public business with clear evidence, I ask that they be judged for perverting the law; those whose crime would otherwise merit death should receive penal servitude instead." The request was approved. The Censorate once interrogated a murderer; when the case was complete, Vice Censor-in-Chief Wang Sui asked that he be dismembered; the emperor said: "The five punishments have their fixed standards—why resort to such cruelty?" Palace Attendant Yang Shouzhen was sent to Shaanxi to supervise the capture of bandits and requested: "For captured robbers whose crime merits death, I ask that they be handed over to me for lingchi execution, to warn the vicious and wicked." An edict stated: "Captured bandits shall be sent to the responsible jurisdiction and judged according to law—do not use lingchi." Lingchi meant first cutting off the limbs, then severing the throat—it was the most extreme punishment of the age. For Zhenzong was benevolent and forgiving, and even cruel punishments—the imperial ancestors had never employed them.

初，殿中侍御史趙湘嘗建言：「聖王行法，必順天道。漢制大辟之科，盡冬月乃斷。此古之善政，當舉行之。且十二月為承天節，萬方祝頌之時，而大辟決斷如故。况十一月一陽始出，其氣尚微，議獄緩刑，所以助陽抑陰也。望以十一月、十二月內，天下大辟未結正者，更令詳覆；已結正者，未令決斷。所在厚加矜恤，掃除獄房，供給飲食、薪炭之屬，防護無致他故。情可憫者，奏聽敕裁。合依法者，盡冬月乃斷。在京大辟人，既當春孟之月，亦行慶施惠之時。伏望萬幾之暇，臨軒躬覽，情可憫者，特從末減，亦所以布聖澤於無窮。况愚民之抵罪未斷，兩月亦非淹延。若用刑順於陰陽，則四時之氣和，氣和則百穀豐實，水旱不作矣。」帝覽奏曰：「此誠嘉事！然古今異制，沿革不同，行之慮有淹滯，或因緣為姦矣。」天禧四年乃詔：「天下犯十惡、劫殺、謀殺、故殺、鬥殺、放火、強劫、正枉法贓、偽造符印、厭魅咒詛、造妖書妖言、傳授妖術、合造毒藥、禁軍諸軍逃亡為盜罪至死者，每遇十二月，權住區斷，過天慶節即決之。餘犯至死者，十二月及春夏未得區遣，禁錮奏裁。」

Earlier, Palace Censor Zhao Xiang once submitted a proposal: "A sage king enforces the law in accord with the Way of Heaven. Under Han law, capital offenses were executed only during the winter months. This was sound governance of antiquity and ought to be revived. Moreover, the twelfth month is the Chengtian Festival, when all regions offer blessings—yet capital executions continue as before. Moreover, in the eleventh month the single yang first emerges and its qi is still weak; deliberating cases and deferring punishments help yang rise and yin recede. I ask that during the eleventh and twelfth months, all capital cases throughout the realm not yet finalized be ordered for renewed review; Those already finalized shall not be executed. Everywhere they should receive extra compassion: prison cells cleaned, food, drink, firewood, and charcoal supplied, and guards posted so that no other mishap befalls them. Those whose circumstances merit pity should be memorialized for the emperor's merciful judgment. Those who must be punished according to law should be executed only after the winter months have passed. For capital convicts in the capital, since it is now early spring, it is also a time for celebration and the granting of favors. I humbly hope that amid the myriad affairs of state, Your Majesty will personally review them from the throne; for those whose circumstances merit pity, grant special leniency—thus spreading imperial grace without end. Moreover, for common people awaiting judgment, two months would hardly count as delay. If punishments accord with yin and yang, the qi of the four seasons will harmonize; when qi harmonizes, the hundred grains flourish and drought and flood do not occur." The emperor read the memorial and said: "This is truly a worthy proposal! Yet ancient and modern systems differ and institutions have evolved—if implemented, I fear there may be delay, or opportunities for abuse." In the fourth year of Tianxi, an edict was issued: "For crimes throughout the realm—the ten abominations, robbery-murder, plotted murder, intentional murder, brawling murder, arson, armed robbery, outright perversion of law for bribes, forging seals and credentials, sorcery and cursing, creating seditious writings and words, teaching occult arts, compounding poisons, and desertion from the forbidden armies or other armies to become bandits—wherever the crime merits death, whenever the twelfth month arrives, execution shall be temporarily suspended; after the Tianqing Festival, they shall be executed. For other capital offenses, during the twelfth month and spring and summer they may not be executed; they shall be imprisoned pending memorialized decision."

在仁宗時，四方無事，戶口蕃息，而克自抑畏，其於用刑尤慎。即位之初，詔內外官司，聽獄決罪，須躬自閱實，毋枉濫淹滯。刑部嘗薦詳覆官，帝記其姓名，曰：「是嘗失入人罪不得遷官者，烏可任法吏？」舉者皆罰金。獄疑者讞，所從來久矣。漢嘗詔「讞而後不當讞者不為失」，所以廣聽察、防繆濫也。時奏讞之法廢。初，真宗嘗覽囚簿，見天下斷死罪八百人，憮然動容，語宰執曰：「雜犯死罪條目至多，官吏儻不盡心，豈無枉濫？故事，死罪獄具，三覆奏，蓋甚重慎，何代罷之？」遂命檢討革，而有司終慮淹繫，不果行。至是，刑部侍郎燕肅奏曰：「唐大辟罪，令尚書、九卿讞之。凡決死刑，京師五覆奏，諸州三覆奏。貞觀四年，斷死罪二十九，開元二十五年，財五十八。今天下生齒未加於唐，而天聖三年，斷大辟二千四百三十六，視唐幾至百倍。京師大辟雖一覆奏，而州郡獄疑上請，法寺多所舉駁，率得不應奏之罪，往往增飾事狀，移情就法，失朝廷欽恤之意。望準唐故事，天下死罪皆得覆奏。議者必曰待報淹延。漢律皆以季秋論囚，唐自立春至秋分不決死刑，未聞淹留以害漢、唐之治也。」下其章中書，王曾謂：「天下皆一覆奏，則必死之人，徒充滿狴犴而久不得決。諸獄疑若情可矜者，聽上請。」天聖四年，遂下詔曰：「朕念生齒之蕃，抵冒者眾。法有高下，情有輕重，而有司巧避微文，一切致之重辟，豈稱朕好生之志哉？其令天下死罪，情理可矜及刑名疑慮者，具案以聞。有司毋得舉駁。」其後，雖法不應奏、吏當坐罪者，審刑院貼奏，率以恩釋為例，名曰「貼放」。吏始無所牽制，請讞者多得減死矣。

During Emperor Renzong's reign, the realm was at peace on all sides, the population flourished, and he restrained himself with humility; in applying punishment he was especially cautious. At the beginning of his reign, an edict ordered all offices, internal and external, that in hearing cases and deciding guilt they must personally verify the facts, without wrongful abuse or protracted delay. The Ministry of Justice once recommended review officials; the emperor remembered their names and said: "These are the ones who wrongly convicted others and were barred from promotion—how can they serve as legal officers?" Those who had recommended them were all fined. Deliberation on doubtful cases is an ancient practice. Han once decreed that "if after deliberation the deliberation proves wrong, it is not counted as error"—thereby broadening scrutiny and preventing abuse. By this time the practice of memorializing for deliberation had been abolished. Earlier, Emperor Zhenzong once reviewed the prisoner register, saw eight hundred death sentences throughout the realm, and was visibly moved; he told the chief ministers: "There are so many categories of capital crimes—if officials do not exert themselves fully, could there not be wrongful convictions? Former precedent required three review memorializations when capital cases were complete—showing great caution—in which reign was this abolished?" He ordered an investigation to restore the practice, but the responsible offices ultimately feared prolonged detention and it was not carried out. At this time, Vice Minister of Justice Yan Su memorialized: "Under Tang, capital crimes were referred to the Ministers and the Nine Ministers for deliberation. For all death sentences, the capital required five review memorializations and the prefectures three. In the fourth year of Zhenguan, there were twenty-nine death sentences; in the twenty-fifth year of Kaiyuan, only fifty-eight. Today the population has not surpassed Tang's, yet in the third year of Tiansheng there were 2,436 capital sentences—nearly a hundred times Tang's numbers. Although the capital required one review memorialization for capital cases, when prefectures submitted doubtful cases for imperial review, the judicial courts often rejected them, usually yielding non-reportable offenses; officials often embellished the facts and shifted circumstances to fit the law, betraying the court's intent of merciful consideration. I ask that following Tang precedent, all death sentences throughout the realm receive review memorialization. Critics will surely say that awaiting approval causes delay. Han law deliberated on prisoners entirely in late autumn; Tang from early spring until the autumn equinox did not execute capital punishment—yet no one has heard that such delay harmed the governance of Han and Tang." The memorial was forwarded to the Secretariat. Wang Zeng said: "If every death sentence throughout the realm must receive review memorialization, those condemned to die will merely fill the prisons while judgment is long deferred. In all prisons, doubtful cases or those whose circumstances merited pity were permitted to submit memorials for review." In the fourth year of Tiansheng, an edict was issued: "We note that the population has grown abundant and offenders are many. The law has gradations and circumstances vary in severity, yet officials cleverly evade fine points of text and uniformly impose capital punishment—how does this accord with Our will to cherish life? Let all death sentences throughout the realm whose circumstances merit pity or whose charges raise doubt be fully reported in memorial. Officials were forbidden to raise objections." Thereafter, even when the law did not require memorialization and officials ought to have been punished, the Office for Review of Punishments submitted attached memorials, generally treating clemency and release as precedent—a practice called "attached release." Officials were at last unrestrained, and those who memorialized for sentence review often had death sentences commuted.

先是，天下旬奏獄狀，雖杖、笞皆申覆，而徒、流罪非繫獄，乃不以聞。六年，集賢校理聶冠卿請罷覆杖、笞，而徒以上雖不繫獄，皆附奏。詔從其說。自定折杖之制，杖之長短廣狹，皆有尺度，而輕重無準，官吏得以任情。至是，有司以為言，詔毋過十五兩。

Earlier, prison reports were submitted throughout the realm every ten days; even beatings with rod or stick were reported for review, yet penal servitude and exile, since the convicts were not held in prison, went unreported. In the sixth year, Nie Guanqing, collator of the Hall of Assembled Worthies, requested abolishing review of rod and stick beatings and requiring that all sentences from penal servitude upward, even when the convict was not held in prison, be attached to memorials. An edict approved his proposal. Since the system of commuted beatings was established, the length, width, and thickness of rods all had fixed measures, yet severity had no standard and officials could act at will. At this point officials raised the matter, and an edict fixed the weight at no more than fifteen liang.

初，真宗時，以京師刑獄多滯，置糾察司，而御史臺獄亦移報之。八年，御史論以為非體，遂詔勿報。祖宗時，重盜剝桑柘之禁，枯者以尺計，積四十二尺為一功，三功以上抵死。殿中丞于大成請得以減死論，下法官議，謂當如舊。帝意欲寬之，詔死者上請。刑部分四按，大辟居其一，月覆大辟不下二百數，而詳覆官纔一人。明道二年，令四按分覆大辟，有能駁正死罪五人以上，歲滿改官。法直官與詳覆官分詳天下旬奏，獄有重辟，獄官毋預燕遊迎送。凡上具獄，大理寺詳斷，大事期三十日，小事第減十日。審刑院詳議又各減半。其不待期滿而斷者，謂之「急按」。凡集斷急按，法官與議者並書姓名，議刑有失，則皆坐之。至景祐二年，判大理寺司徒昌運言：「斷獄有期日，而炎暍之時，繫囚淹久，請自四月至六月減期日之半，兩川、廣南、福建、湖南如急按奏。」其後猶以斷獄淹滯，又詔月上斷獄數，列大、中，小事期日，以相參考。是歲，改強盜法。不持杖，不得財，徒二年；得財為錢萬及傷人者，死。持杖而不得財，流三千里；得財為錢五千者，死；傷人者，殊死。不持杖得財為錢六千，若持杖罪不至死者，仍刺隸千里外牢城。能告?盜劫殺人者第賞之，及十人者予錢十萬。既而有司言：「竊盜不用威力，得財為錢五千，即刺為兵，反重於強盜，請減之。」遂詔至十千始刺為兵，而京城持杖竊盜，得財為錢四千，亦刺為兵。自是盜法惟京城加重，餘視舊益寬矣。

Initially, under Zhenzong, because criminal cases in the capital often stagnated, an Inspection Office was established, and cases in the Censorate prison were also reported to it. In the eighth year, censors argued that this was improper, and an edict ordered that such reports cease. In the time of the imperial ancestors, the prohibition on stealing and stripping mulberry and ramie trees was strictly enforced; withered branches were measured by the foot, forty-two feet counted as one offense, and three offenses or more merited death. Palace Administration Aide Yu Dacheng requested that such cases be judged with commutation from death; the matter was referred to legal officials for deliberation, who ruled that the old standard should stand. The emperor wished to leniently treat the matter and ordered that death sentences be submitted upward for review. The Ministry of Justice was divided into four review sections, capital cases occupying one; each month no fewer than two hundred capital cases came up for review, yet there was only one detailed review official. In the second year of Mingdao, the four sections were ordered to divide review of capital cases; officials who overturned five or more death sentences received promotion upon completing their term. Legal examiners and detailed review officials divided review of the realm's ten-day prison reports; when a case involved capital punishment, prison officials were forbidden to attend banquets, outings, or escort duties. For all completed cases submitted upward, the Court of Judicial Review conducted detailed judgment: major cases had a deadline of thirty days, minor cases ten days less. The Office for Review of Punishments' detailed deliberation halved each deadline again. Cases decided before the deadline expired were called "expedited cases." For all expedited cases decided in assembly, judges and deliberators all signed their names; if the deliberated punishment was in error, all were held accountable. By the second year of Jingyou, Situ Changyun, acting director of the Court of Judicial Review, said: "Cases have fixed deadlines, yet in hot and sultry seasons prisoners are long detained; I request that from the fourth to the sixth month deadlines be halved, and that in the Two Sichuans, Guangnan, Fujian, and Hunan cases be submitted as expedited cases." Thereafter, because cases still stagnated, an edict also required monthly reports of cases decided, listing deadlines for major, medium, and minor cases for cross-reference. That year, the law on robbery was revised. Without carrying a weapon, if no property was taken, penal servitude for two years; if property taken amounted to ten thousand cash or a person was injured, death. Carrying a weapon but taking no property, exile three thousand li; if property taken amounted to five thousand cash, death; if a person was injured, execution by decapitation. Without carrying a weapon, if property taken amounted to six thousand cash, or if carrying a weapon the crime did not merit death, the offender was still tattooed and registered as convict labor in fortress cities a thousand li away. Those who reported bandits acting in groups who robbed and killed were rewarded according to merit; informants whose reports covered ten or more offenders received one hundred thousand cash. Soon after officials said: "Petty theft without use of force, if property taken amounted to five thousand cash, immediately resulted in tattooing as soldier—heavier in fact than robbery; we request a reduction." An edict was then issued that tattooing as soldier began only at ten thousand cash, while in the capital armed petty theft with property taken amounting to four thousand cash also resulted in tattooing as soldier. From this time only the capital had heavier theft law; elsewhere the old standards were increasingly lenient.

慶曆五年，詔罪殊死者，若祖父母、父母年八十及篤疾無期親者，列所犯以聞。

In the fifth year of Qingli, an edict ordered that for crimes meriting execution by decapitation, if grandparents or parents were eighty years old or seriously ill with no other close kin, the offense should be listed and reported.

承平日久，天下生齒益蕃，犯法者多，歲斷大辟甚眾，而有司未嘗上其數。嘉祐五年，判刑部李綖言：「一歲之中，死刑無慮二千餘。夫風俗之薄，無甚於骨肉相殘；衣食之窮莫急於盜賊。今犯法者眾，豈刑罰不足以止姦，而教化未能導其為善歟？願詔刑部類天下所斷大辟，歲上朝廷，以助觀省。」從之。

Peace had long endured; the population throughout the realm grew ever more abundant, lawbreakers were many, and capital cases decided each year were extremely numerous—yet officials had never reported the numbers. In the fifth year of Jiayou, Li Yuan, vice minister of the Ministry of Justice, said: "Within one year, death sentences number no less than two thousand. Of the decline in custom, nothing is worse than kin slaughtering kin; of the extremity of want in food and clothing, nothing is more urgent than bandits and thieves. Now lawbreakers are many—is it that punishments are insufficient to stop wickedness, or that instruction and transformation have not yet guided them toward goodness? I ask that an edict order the Ministry of Justice to classify all capital cases decided throughout the realm and report them annually to the court, to assist observation and reflection." The request was approved.

凡在京班直諸軍請糧，斗斛不足，出戍之家尤甚。倉吏自以在官無祿，恣為侵漁。神宗謂非所以愛養將士之意，於是詔三司，始立諸倉丐取法。而中書請主典役人，歲增祿至一萬八千九百餘緡。凡丐取不滿百錢，徒一年，每百錢則加一等；千錢流二千里，每千錢則加一等，罪止流三千里。其行貨及過致者，減首罪二等。徒者皆配五百里，其賞百千；流者皆配千里，賞二百千；滿十千，為首者配沙門島，賞三百千，自首則除其罪。凡更定約束十條行之。其後內則政府，外則監司，多倣此法。內外歲增吏祿至百餘萬緡，皆取諸坊場，河渡，市利，免行、役剩息錢。久之，議臣欲稍緩倉法，編敕所修立告捕獲倉法給賞條，自一百千分等至三百千，而按問者減半給之。中書請依所定，詔仍舊給全賞，雖按問，亦全給。呂嘉問嘗請，行貨者宜止以不應為坐之，刑部始減其罪。及哲宗初，嘗罷重祿法，而紹聖復仍舊。

For all garrison troops on duty rotation in the capital requesting grain rations, the measures were insufficient, especially for families of men deployed on frontier duty. Granary clerks, considering themselves unsalaried while in office, freely engaged in extortion. Shenzong said this was not the way to cherish and sustain officers and soldiers; thereupon he ordered the Three Departments to establish for the first time the Granary Extortion Law. The Secretariat requested salaries for chief clerks and laborers, increasing annual pay to more than eighteen thousand nine hundred strings of cash. For all extortion of less than one hundred cash, penal servitude for one year; for each additional hundred cash one degree was added; one thousand cash, exile two thousand li; for each additional thousand cash one degree was added, the punishment stopping at exile three thousand li. Those who gave bribes and those who transmitted them had their punishment reduced two degrees below the principal offense. Those sentenced to penal servitude were all assigned five hundred li away, with a reward of one hundred strings; those sentenced to exile were all assigned a thousand li away, with a reward of two hundred strings; at ten thousand cash, the ringleader was assigned to Shamen Island, with a reward of three hundred strings; self-confession removed the crime. In all, ten revised regulations were established and put into effect. Thereafter, within the government and among circuit supervisors without, many modeled themselves on this law. Within and without, annual increases in clerical salaries reached more than a million strings, all drawn from market stalls, river crossings, market profits, exemption fees, service surpluses, and interest monies. After some time, deliberating officials wished slightly to relax the granary law; the Statute Compilation Office revised the reward provisions for reporting and capturing granary-law offenders, ranging by degree from one hundred to three hundred strings, while interrogators received half. The Secretariat requested following what was fixed; an edict ordered that full rewards still be given as before, and even interrogators received the full amount. Lü Jiawen once requested that those who gave bribes should be punished only under the statute for improper conduct; the Ministry of Justice then reduced their punishment. At the beginning of Zhezong's reign, the heavy-salary law was once abolished, but under Shaosheng the old practice was restored.

熙寧四年，立盜賊重法。凡盜罪當死者，籍其家貲以賞告人，妻子編置千里；遇赦若災傷減等者，配遠惡地。罪當徙、流者，配嶺表；流罪會降者，配三千里，籍其家貲之半為賞，妻子遞降等有差。應編配者，雖會赦，不移不釋。凡囊橐之家，劫盜死罪，情重者斬，餘皆配遠惡地，籍其家貲之半為賞。盜罪當徒、流者，配五百里，籍其家貲三之一為賞。竊盜三犯，杖配五百里或州。雖非重法之地，而囊橐重法之人，以重法論。其知縣、捕盜官皆用舉者，或武臣為尉。盜發十人以上，限內捕半不獲，劾罪取旨。若復殺官吏，及累殺三人，焚舍屋百間，或?行州縣之內，劫掠江海船之中，非重地，亦以重論。凡重法地，嘉祐中，始於開封府諸縣，後稍及諸州。以開封府東明、考城、長垣縣，京西滑州，淮南宿州，河北澶州，京東應天府、濮、齊、徐、濟、單、兗、鄆、沂州、淮陽軍，亦立重法，著為令。至元豐時，河北、京東、淮南、福建等路皆用重法，郡縣寖益廣矣。元豐敕，重法地分，劫盜五人以上，凶惡者，方論以重法。紹聖後，有犯即坐，不計人數。復立妻孥編管法。至元符三年，因刑部有請，詔改依舊敕。先是，曾布建言：「盜情有重輕，贓有多少。今以贓論罪，則劫貧家情雖重，而以贓少減免，劫富室情雖輕，而以贓重論死。是盜之生死，係於主之貧富也。至於傷人，情狀亦殊。以手足毆人，偶傷肌體，與夫兵刃湯火，固有間矣，而均謂之傷。朝廷雖許奏裁，而州郡或奏或否，死生之分，特幸與不幸爾。不若一變舊法，凡以贓定罪及傷人情狀不至切害者，皆從罪止之法。其用兵刃湯火，情狀酷毒，乃汙辱良家，或入州縣鎮砦行劫，若驅虜官吏巡防人等，不以傷與不傷，凡情不可貸者，皆處以死刑，則輕重不失其當矣。」及布為相，始從其議，詔有司改法。未幾，侍御史陳次升言：「祖宗仁政，加於天下者甚廣。刑法之重，改而從輕者至多。惟是強盜之法，特加重者，蓋以禁姦宄而惠良民也。近朝廷改法，詔以強盜計贓應絞者，並增一倍；贓滿不傷人，及雖傷人而情輕者奏裁。法行之後，民受其弊。被害之家，以盜無必死之理，不敢告官，而鄰里亦不為之擒捕，恐怨仇報復。故賊益逞，重法地分尤甚。恐養成大寇，以貽國家之患，請復行舊法。」布罷相，翰林學士徐勣復言其不便，乃詔如舊法，前詔勿行。

In the fourth year of Xining, the Heavy Law on Bandits and Thieves was established. For all theft crimes meriting death, household property was registered to reward informants, and wives and children were registered and resettled a thousand li away; if amnesty or disaster relief reduced the sentence, they were assigned to distant and harsh lands. Those whose crimes merited penal servitude or exile were assigned beyond the mountain passes; exile sentences meeting reduction were assigned three thousand li away, half the household property was registered as reward, and wives and children were reduced by successive degrees accordingly. Those subject to registered assignment, even if meeting amnesty, were neither transferred nor released. For all households that harbored bandits, robbery meriting death: if the circumstances were severe, decapitation; the rest were all assigned to distant and harsh lands, and half the household property was registered as reward. Theft crimes meriting penal servitude or exile were assigned five hundred li away, and one-third of household property was registered as reward. Petty theft on the third offense, after beating, was assigned five hundred li away or to a neighboring prefecture. Even if not in a heavy-law region, those who harbored offenders subject to the heavy law were judged by the heavy law. Their district magistrates and bandit-capture officials were all men recommended for appointment, or military officers serving as captains. When banditry involved ten or more persons, if half were not captured within the deadline, guilt was investigated and imperial decision sought. If they further killed officials, or cumulatively killed three persons, burned a hundred dwellings, or acted in groups within prefectures and counties and plundered river and sea boats and rafts—even if not in a heavy-law region, they were also judged by the heavy law. For all heavy-law regions, in the Jiayou era it began in the counties of Kaifeng Prefecture, and later gradually extended to various prefectures. Dongming, Kaocheng, and Changyuan counties of Kaifeng Prefecture, Huazhou in Jingxi, Suzhou in Huainan, Danzhou in Hebei, Yingtian Prefecture in Jingdong, and the prefectures of Pu, Qi, Xu, Ji, Shan, Yan, Yun, and Yi, plus Huaiyang Commandery, also established the heavy law, which was written as ordinance. By the Yuanfeng era, the circuits of Hebei, Jingdong, Huainan, Fujian, and others all applied the heavy law, and its reach among prefectures and counties grew ever broader. The Yuanfeng edict stated that in heavy-law regions, only robbery by five or more vicious and wicked persons might be judged by the heavy law. After Shaosheng, any offense immediately incurred punishment, without regard to the number of persons involved. The Law on Registered Control of Wives and Children was reestablished. By the third year of Yuanfu, because the Ministry of Justice submitted a request, an edict ordered reversion to the old edict. Earlier, Zeng Bu submitted a proposal: "The circumstances of theft have degrees of severity, and stolen goods vary in amount. Now judging guilt by stolen goods, robbing a poor household though the circumstances are severe is mitigated because the goods are few, while robbing a rich household though the circumstances are mild is judged death because the goods are great. Thus whether a thief lives or dies depends on the victim's wealth or poverty. As for injuring persons, the circumstances also differ. Striking a person with hands or feet and accidentally injuring the flesh is certainly distinct from weapons, boiling water, or fire, yet all are equally called injury. Although the court permitted memorials for imperial decision, prefectures and commanderies sometimes memorialized and sometimes did not—the difference between life and death was merely luck and misfortune. Better to change the old law at once: for all cases judged by stolen goods and injuries whose circumstances do not reach grave harm, all should follow the law limiting punishment to the minimum. Those who use weapons, boiling water, or fire with cruel and poisonous circumstances, who defile respectable households, or enter prefectures, counties, towns, and stockades to rob, or who drive off and capture officials and patrol guards—regardless of whether injury occurred—for all whose circumstances cannot be pardoned, all should receive the death penalty; then severity and leniency would not miss their proper measure." When Bu became chief councilor, his proposal was at last adopted, and an edict ordered officials to revise the law. Before long, Attendant Censor Chen Cisheng said: "The benevolent policies of the imperial ancestors extended very broadly over the realm. Among heavy punishments in the penal code, those revised toward leniency were extremely many. Only the law on robbery was specially made heavier, intending to restrain treachery and wickedness and benefit good commoners. Recently the court revised the law, ordering that for robbery judged by stolen goods meriting strangulation, the threshold was doubled; when stolen goods reached the threshold without injury, or though injury occurred the circumstances were mild, memorials for imperial decision were submitted. After the law was implemented, the people suffered its harm. Victim households, believing bandits had no certainty of death, dared not report to officials, and neighbors also would not capture them for fear of vengeful reprisal. Thus bandits grew ever bolder, especially in heavy-law regions. I fear this will nurture great bandit gangs and leave trouble for the state; I ask that the old law be restored." When Bu left the chancellorship, Hanlin Academician Xu Ji again argued that the change was unworkable, and an edict ordered a return to the old law; the earlier edict was revoked.

先是，諸路經略、鈐轄，不得便宜斬配百姓。趙抃嘗知成都，乃言當獨許成都四路。王安石執不可，而中書、樞密院同立法許之。其後，謝景初奏：「成都妄以便宜誅釋，多不當。」於是中書復刪定敕文，惟軍士犯罪及邊防機速，許特斷。及抃移成都，又請立法，御史劉孝孫亦為之請依舊便宜從事，安石寢其奏。

Previously, frontier commissioners and jurisdictional commissioners in every circuit were forbidden to execute or banish commoners on their own authority. Zhao Bian, who had once governed Chengdu, argued that discretionary power should be granted only to the four Chengdu circuits. Wang Anshi held that this was impermissible, yet the Secretariat and Bureau of Military Affairs jointly enacted a law permitting it. Later Xie Jingchu memorialized: "Chengdu has wantonly exercised discretionary power to execute or release offenders, mostly without justification." Thereupon the Secretariat again revised the edict text so that special summary judgment was permitted only for crimes by soldiers and urgent frontier emergencies. When Bian was transferred to Chengdu, he again requested legislation, and Censor Liu Xiaosun also petitioned that he be allowed to act at discretion as before; Anshi shelved the memorial.

武臣犯贓，經赦敘復後，更立年考升遷。帝曰：「若此，何以戒貪吏？」故命改法。熙寧六年，樞密都承旨曾孝寬等定議上之，大概倣文臣敘法而少增損爾。七年，詔：「品官犯罪，按察之官並奏劾聽旨。毋得擅捕繫、罷其職奉。」

Military officers who committed corruption, once restored after amnesty, were again subject to annual review and promotion. The Emperor said: "If that is allowed, how will greedy officials be deterred?" He therefore ordered the law revised. In the sixth year of Xining, Bureau Director Zeng Xiaokuan and others drafted regulations and submitted them, largely following the civil-officer restoration law with minor adjustments. In the seventh year, an edict ordered: "When ranked officials commit crimes, investigating officials must memorialize impeachment and await imperial decision. They may not on their own authority arrest, detain, or suspend salary and emoluments."

元豐二年，成都府、利路鈐轄言：「往時川峽絹匹為錢二千六百，以此估贓，兩鐵錢得比銅錢之一。近絹匹不過千三百，估贓二匹乃得一匹之罪，多不至重法。」令法寺定以一錢半當銅錢之一。

In the second year of Yuanfeng, the Chengdu Prefecture and Lizhou jurisdictional commissioner reported: "Formerly a bolt of silk in the Sichuan gorges was worth 2,600 cash; stolen goods were valued accordingly, so that two iron coins counted as one copper coin. Now a bolt of silk is worth no more than 1,300; under current valuation two bolts of stolen silk only incur the penalty for one, so offenders often escape the heavy law." The Office of the Review of Laws was ordered to fix the rate at one and a half iron coins to one copper coin.

元祐二年，刑部、大理寺定制：「凡斷讞奏獄，每二十緡以上為大事，十緡以上為中事，不滿十緡為小事。大事以十二日，中事九日，小事四日為限。若在京、八路大事十日，中事五日，小事三日。臺察及刑部舉劾約法狀並十日，三省、樞密院再送各減半。有故量展，不得過五日。凡公案日限，大事以三十五日，中事二十五日，小事十日為限。在京、八路大事以三十日，中事半之，小事三之一。臺察及刑部並三十日。每十日，斷用七日，議用三日。」

In the second year of Yuanyou, the Ministry of Justice and Court of Judicial Review established rules: "For all cases submitted after judgment, twenty strings of cash or more counted as a major matter, ten strings or more as a medium matter, and less than ten strings as a minor matter. Major matters were limited to twelve days, medium matters to nine days, and minor matters to four days. In the capital and the Eight Circuits, the limits were ten days for major matters, five for medium matters, and three for minor matters. Cases from censorial offices and Ministry of Justice summary impeachments were allotted ten days; when resubmitted by the Three Departments and Bureau of Military Affairs, each limit was halved. Extensions for good cause were permitted, but could not exceed five days. For all ordinary case deadlines, major matters were limited to thirty-five days, medium matters to twenty-five days, and minor matters to ten days. In the capital and the Eight Circuits, major matters were limited to thirty days, medium matters to half that, and minor matters to one-third. Cases from censorial offices and the Ministry of Justice were allotted thirty days. Of every ten days, seven were for adjudication and three for deliberation."

五年，詔命官犯罪，事干邊防軍政，文臣申尚書省，武臣申樞密院。中丞蘇轍言：「舊制，文臣、吏民斷罪公案歸中書，武臣、軍士歸樞密，而斷例輕重，悉不相知。元豐更定官制，斷獄公案並由大理、刑部申尚書省，然後上中書省取旨。自是斷獄輕重比例，始得歸一，天下稱明焉。今復分隸樞密，必有罪同斷異，失元豐本意，請並歸三省。其事干邊防軍政者，令樞密院同進取旨，則事體歸一，而兵政大臣各得其職。」六年，乃詔：「文武官有犯同按干邊防軍政者，刑部定斷，仍三省、樞密院同取旨。」

In the fifth year, an edict ordered that when ranked officials committed crimes touching frontier defense and military affairs, civil officials were to report to the Ministry of Personnel and military officials to the Bureau of Military Affairs. Censor-in-chief Su Che said: "Under the old system, criminal cases involving civil officials and commoners went to the Secretariat, while those involving military officers and soldiers went to the Bureau of Military Affairs, yet neither side knew the other's sentencing precedents. When the Yuanfeng reforms reorganized the bureaucracy, all criminal cases passed through the Court of Judicial Review and Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Personnel, and then up to the Secretariat for imperial decision. From then on the scale of severity in sentencing could be unified, and the realm praised the clarity of the system. Now that cases are again divided under the Bureau of Military Affairs, identical crimes will inevitably receive different judgments, betraying the original intent of the Yuanfeng reforms; I ask that all cases be returned to the Three Departments. When a case touches frontier defense and military affairs, let the Bureau of Military Affairs jointly submit it for imperial decision; then the substance of affairs will be unified, and the ministers of military affairs will each fulfill their proper duties." In the sixth year, an edict ordered: "When civil and military officials commit crimes jointly investigated in matters touching frontier defense and military affairs, the Ministry of Justice shall determine judgment, and the Three Departments and Bureau of Military Affairs shall jointly obtain imperial decision."

刑部論：「佃客犯主，加凡人一等。主犯之，杖以下勿論，徒以上減凡人一等。謀殺盜詐，有所規求避免而犯者，不減。因毆致死者不刺面，配鄰州，情重者奏裁。凡命士死於官或去位，其送徒道亡，則部轄將校、節級與首率眾者徒一年，情輕則杖百，雖自首不免。」

The Ministry of Justice ruled: "When tenant farmers offend their masters, the penalty is one grade above that for ordinary persons. When the master offends them, beatings and lesser punishments are not prosecuted; penal servitude and above are reduced one grade below that for ordinary persons. Premeditated murder, robbery, or fraud, or offenses committed with some design to gain advantage or evade obligation, receive no reduction. If beating causes death, the offender is not tattooed but is exiled to a neighboring prefecture; where circumstances are grave, the case is submitted for imperial decision. Whenever an appointee dies in office or after leaving his post, if convicts escape en route during escort, the unit commander, squad leader, and chief ringleader receive one year of penal servitude; if circumstances are mild, one hundred blows; even voluntary surrender does not exempt them."

政和間，詔：「品官犯罪，三問不承，即奏請追攝；若情理重害而拒隱，方許枷訊。邇來有司廢法，不原輕重，枷訊與常人無異，將使人有輕吾爵祿之心。可申明條令，以稱欽恤之意。」又詔；「宗子犯罪，庭訓示辱。比有去衣受杖，傷膚敗體，有惻朕懷。其令大宗正司恪守條制，違者以違御筆論。」又曰：「其情理重害，別被處分。若罪至徒、流，方許制勘，餘止以眾證為定，仍取伏辨，無得輒加捶考。其合庭訓者，並送大宗正司，以副朕敦睦九族之意。」中書省言：「律，『在官犯罪，去官勿論』。蓋為命官立文。其後相因，掌典去官，亦用去官免罪，有犯則解役歸農，幸免重罪。」詔改政和敕掌典解役從去官法。

During the Zhenghe era, an edict ordered: "When ranked officials commit crimes, if after three interrogations they do not confess, officials shall immediately memorialize requesting their summons; Shackled interrogation is permitted only when the circumstances are gravely harmful and the offender refuses to disclose them. Recently officials have abandoned the law, disregarding degrees of severity, and apply shackled interrogation no differently than to commoners—this will lead people to hold our ranks and stipends in contempt. The regulations should be clarified to reflect the emperor's compassionate intent." Another edict followed: "When imperial clansmen commit crimes, household admonishment at court suffices as humiliation. Recently some have been stripped for beating, wounding flesh and marring the body—this moves Us to compassion. Let the Directorate of the Imperial Clan strictly observe the regulations; violators shall be punished as defying the emperor's personal command." It was also ordered: "Where circumstances are gravely harmful, separate punishment shall be applied. Formal inquest is permitted only when guilt reaches penal servitude or exile; otherwise conviction rests on collective testimony alone, with written confession obtained—beating and torture must not be applied casually. Those fit for household admonishment shall all be sent to the Directorate of the Imperial Clan, in keeping with Our intent to nurture harmony among the nine kinship ranks." The Secretariat said: "The code provides, 'Crimes committed while in office are not prosecuted once the offender has left office. That provision was written for appointed officials. Subsequently the practice spread by precedent: when clerks in charge left office they too invoked leaving office to escape punishment; offenders were released from service and sent back to farming, narrowly avoiding serious penalties." An edict amended the Zhenghe edict so that clerks released from service and returned to farming were governed by the leaving-office law.

左道亂法，妖言惑眾，先王之所不赦，至宋尤重其禁。凡傳習妖教，夜聚曉散，與夫殺人祭祀之類，皆著于法，訶察甚嚴。故姦軌不逞之民，無以動搖愚俗。間有為之，隨輒報敗，其事不足紀也。

Heterodox cults that subvert the law and sorcerous talk that misleads the masses were what the ancient kings never pardoned; under the Song the prohibitions were especially severe. All who transmitted heterodox teachings, gathering at night and dispersing at dawn, as well as such practices as human sacrifice, were codified in law and subjected to rigorous investigation. Thus wicked and lawless persons had no means to sway the credulous populace. Occasionally some tried, but were promptly exposed and crushed; such incidents scarcely merit mention.

Cite this Chapter