The power of mercy: amnesty policies in fugitive cases in the Qing Dynasty

• Author: Hu Xiangyu
• Position: Ph.D. in History, History Department, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, USA; Associate Professor, Institute of Qing History, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China. Contact: hu2011@ruc.edu.cn
• Pages: 4-19

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 15 MARCH 2020 NO. 1

DOI 10.3868/s050-009-020-0002-8

FOCUS

TRADITION AND TRANSFORMATION: LAW I N LATE IMPERIAL AND

MODERN CHINA

THE POWER OF MERCY: AMNESTY POLICIES IN FUGITIVE

CASES IN THE QING DYNASTY

HU Xiangyu∗

Abstract A new statute, “Hiding New and Old Fugitive Slaves of Manchus,” was

added to the first version of the Qing code in 1647, and this statute surprisingly

regulated that any offenders would be excluded from any amnesties. This is especially

noteworthy because, according to both Ming and Qing codes, only severe crimes, such

as treason and rebellion, were excluded from any amnesties. Previous scholars have not

considered why the statute excluded any amnesties, nor have they analyzed how this

amnesty policy was implemented in practice. This article contends that the exclusion did

not arise from Manchu tradition. Instead, it was an exceptional response to the norms of

amnesties in the Ming and Qing codes. Because the fugitive problem, involving slaves

of Manchus fleeing from the banner system, endangered Manchus’ interests, the Qing

court was compelled to exclude fugitive criminals from amnesties. However, the Qing

court did not strictly apply the amnesty policy of this statute. Criminals in fugitive cases

were sometimes pardoned because of amnesties during the Dorgon regency period.

Dorgon, Shunzhi, Oboi, and Kangxi all initially excluded those harboring fugitives from

amnesties, but later changed their amnesty policies in this regard. Even though the crime

of harboring fugitives became a permanent symbol of Manchu rule and was recorded in

every emperor’s enthronement edict from Kangxi to Xuantong, the Qing court gradually

came to accept norms concerning amnesties as practiced in Han society and treated

fugitive cases as ordinary court cases during and after the Kangxi emperor’s reign.

Keywords amnesty policies, fugitive slaves, fugitive law, Manchu, Qing dynasty

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 5

I. SPECIFICITIES OF THE AMNESTY POLICY IN THE FUGITIVE STATUTE........................... 7

II. AMNESTIES AND FUGITIVE CASES BEFORE 1644........................................................ 9

∗ HU Xiangyu (胡祥雨), Ph.D. in History, History Department, University of Minnesota Twin Cities,

Minneapolis, USA; Associate Professor, Institute of Qing History, Renmin University of China, Beijing

100872, China. Contact: hu2011@ruc.edu.cn

This article is supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Project No. 15BZS068).

2020] THE POWER OF MERCY 5

III. AMNESTIES AND FUGITIVE CASES DURING THE DORGON REGENCY

(1644–1650) ......................................................................................................... 10

IV. AMNESTIES AND FUGITIVE CASES UNDER JIRGALANG AND SHUNZHI..................... 14

V. AMNESTIES AND FUGITIVE CASES AFTER SHUNZHI.................................................. 16

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... 18

INTRODUCTION

During the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), Manchus, an ethnic minority from northeast

China, ruled China. In order to rule the millions of people constituting the Han population,

Manchus in many ways adopted Ming institutions. The first version of the Qing code,

promulgated in 1647 (hereafter the Shunzhi Qing code), is considered almost a copy of

the Ming code. However, a new statute in the Shunzhi Qing code, “Hiding New and Old

Fugitive Slaves of Manchus” 隐匿满洲逃亡新旧家人, marked a significant difference

between the Qing and Ming codes.1 This statute excluded offenders in fugitive slave

cases from any amnesties.2 This was a noteworthy exception since, according to the

amnesty statute on “Crimes That Shall Not Be Pardoned under the General Amnesty” 常

赦所不原 in both the Ming and Qing codes, only severe crimes with some of which being

committed deliberately, such as treason, rebellion or homicide, were excluded from

general amnesties.3 Moreover, no other statutes or substatutes that dealt with specific

crimes in the Ming and Shunzhi Qing codes stipulated that offenders were excluded from

amnesties.4

1 ZHENG Qin, 顺治三年律考 (An Examination of the Qing Code of the Third Year of the Shunzhi Reign

Version), 18(1) 法学研究 (Chinese Journal of Law), 148–149 (1996). ZHENG Qin & ZHOU Guangyuan,

Pursuing Perfection: Formation of the Qing Code, 21(3) Modern China, 318–319 (1995). HU Xiangyu, “逃人

法”入顺治律考——兼谈“逃人法”的应用 (A Study on Adding the Fugitive Regulations to the Qing Code: And

Talking about the Application of the Fugitive Regulations), 3 清史研究 (The Qing History Journal), 111–112

(2012).

2 Ganglin ed. 大清律集解附例 (Statutes of the Great Qing with Collected Commentaries and Appended

Substatutes), Columbia University East Asia Library (New York), at Vol. 4: 7–9 (1646).

3 JIANG Yonglin trans. The Great Ming Code / Da Minglü, University of Washington Press (Seattle), at

27 (2005). See Ganglin, Id. at Vol. 1: 20. WANG Hongzhi & LI Jianyu eds. 顺治三年奏定律 · 大清律集解附

例 (The Code Commissioned in 1646 Statues of the Great Qing with Collected Commentaries and Appended

Substatutes), in 中国珍稀法律典籍续编 (A Continued Compilation of Chinese Rare Legal Codes), Vol. 5,

Heilongjiang People’s Publishing House (Harbin), at 134 (2002).

4 Even statutes that dealt with crimes such as treason or rebellion did not state that any offenders would

be excluded from amnesties — such provisions were in the statute on “Crimes That Shall Not Be Pardoned

under General Amnesty.” See JIANG, Id. at 154–155. See Ganglin, fn. 2 at Vol. 18: 1–2. There were articles

in both Ming and Shunzhi codes stating that certain penalties would be enforced with no prospect of

amnesties, for example, stipulations from statutes on “Families of Those Punished by Life Exile” 流囚家属,

“Incorrectly Deciding Penalties before Amnesties” 赦前断罪不当 and on “Hearing That There Will Be

Amnesties and Deliberately Committing Crimes” 闻有恩赦而故犯. These stipulations dealt with certain

categories of crimes or penalties, not specific crimes. See JIANG, Id. at 26, 239. See Ganglin, fn. 2 at Vol. 1:

19–20; Vol. 28: 23–24.