宋朝對非漢民法律案件的處置方式──以北宋時期的荊湖、四川為中心

The Legal Adjudication of Non-Han Peoples in the Song Dynasty: Jinghu and Sichuan during the Northern Song Period

宋朝《刑統》雖承繼唐律「化外人相犯」條，但從法律的制定與實際個案來看，該條並不適用其統治下的非漢民。本文考察神宗朝（1067-1085）以降荊湖路、四川南部的個案──黔州一州敕、五等罰法、蠻人條制、沅州改制、沅州一州敕，修正並補充現有研究成果中「由本俗法轉變為宋朝律令」的論點。由於神宗朝的邊境開拓，在四川黔州、瀘州等地區形成適用該州所管熟戶的本俗專法，其具體內容因時地不同而略有變異。熙寧八年（1075）的黔州一州敕僅規範殺、傷、盜罪與相應的固定賠償數額，但元祐五年（1090）的蠻人條制已將賠償數額對應於五刑，更近似於宋朝法律體系的贖銅制度。歸明人法律案件的規範形成較晚。元祐六年（1091）在荊湖路沅州首見規定該州所管歸明人與漢人相犯案件應依循宋朝律令，並於政和六年（1116）前將適用範圍擴及全國的歸明人法律案件。其中，沅州渠陽寨因開拓政策的退卻成為非省地，另制定以罰贖為刑罰的沅州一州敕，應為特例。根據本文考察，宋朝對熟戶法律案件的處置方式兼融本俗法的損害賠償與宋朝本身的法律體系，且因時地不同，尤其是開拓政策的進程而異。歸明人案件則呈現不同的發展過程，相關規範在哲宗朝（1085-1100）才逐漸形成，但在北宋末已出現全國一體適用的處置方式。

This paper analyzes how the Song dynasty handled legal cases involving non-Han peoples under its rule, focusing on case studies from Jinghu荊湖and southern Sichuan四川. Although the Song dynasty’s Code (Xing Tong刑統), inherited the Tang Code’s clause on“offences among the barbarians (Huawai ren化外人),”this clause did not apply to non-Han peoples under Song jurisdiction, as evidenced by both the legislative frameworks and actual cases. This study examines cases from the reign of Emperor Shenzong神宗(r. 1067-1085) onward, including the Edict (chi敕) of Qianzhou黔州, the Five Rank of Penalties of Qianzhou Barbarians (Man蠻), the Regulations (tiaozhi條制) for Barbarians (Manren蠻人) of Qianzhou, the legal reform of the Guiming歸明people in Yuanzhou沅州, and the Edict of Yuanzhou. It aims to revise and supplement existing research that posits a transition from indigenous laws (bensu fa本俗法) to Song Codes.
Due to Shenzong’s border expansion policies, it came about that specific customary laws (bensu zhuanfa本俗專法) were applied to indigenous households under the jurisdiction (shuhu熟戶) of prefectures such as Qianzhou and Luzhou, with variations depending on time and locality. The 1075 Edict of Qianzhou regulated only specific offense—such as homicide, assault, and theft—and their associated fixed compensation rates. However, by 1090, the Regulations for Barbarians linked compensation rates to the Five Punishments (wu xing五刑), aligning more closely with the copper redemption system (shutong贖銅) of the Song Code. Legal provisions for the Guiming People were developed later; in 1091, the first legal provision appeared in Yuanzhou, an area of Jinghu Circuit, stipulating that cases involving offenses between Guiming and Han should be adjudicated according to the Song Code. By 1116, this principle had been expanded to apply to all legal cases involving Guiming across the entire country. A unique case was that of Quyang Fort渠陽寨in Yuanzhou. Due to the retraction of expansion policies between 1087 and 1090, the Quyang Fort area, which had been brought under Song rule through Shenzong’s efforts, was no longer considered provincial land (shengdi省地), that is, territory governed by Song prefectures. In response, the Song government issued the Edict of Yuanzhou, which primarily employed fines and redemptions as the main form of punishment to address legal cases in the region. This case should be regarded as an exception.
This study finds that the Song government’s handling of legal cases involving shuhu blended bensu fa with its own legal framework, adapting to specific times and localities, particularly in relation to the progression of expansion policies. In contrast, the legal treatment of the Guiming developed differently, with regulations that aligned legal cases according to the Song Code emerging during the reign of Emperor Zhezong哲宗(r. 1085-1100) and being adopted territory-wide by the end of the Northern Song period.