Abstract：In the study of comparative legal history, the classic proposition that “people are fond of lawsuits in the West while the Chinese are reluctant to litigate” has aroused heated discussions among scholars in the Chinese academia. However, in recent years, the opinion that “the Chinese hate lawsuits” has gradually become unacceptable. Some historians of China have confirmed that vigorous lawsuits launched by local people can be found everywhere since Song China, and “litigious society” became the norm in Qing China. At the same time, the Western scholars have painted a picture that English people were very disgusted with litigation, thus shook the “litigation imagination” of the West. In the future, we can try to compare the litigation rates between China and the West from the perspective of quantitative history. The number of cases in judicial archives and the distribution of types of cases in various courts can be found through comparing litigation rates in early modern China and England. However, we should be alert to the pitfalls behind quantitative historical researches, and further investigate what is a “case” in the different judicial systems of China and England. When examining the number of cases, it cannot be ignored that the cases themselves have complex connotations. The purpose of our comparison of the litigation rate is not to find out who has more or less cases but to know the installation of system in which the litigation rates are generated. On the one hand, we need to count the litigation rates of China and England in a quantitative sense; on the other hand, we need to further explore the different process of case formation in China and England to understand the intention behind the litigation rates in the two countries. The local power structures and their judicial system resources of the two countries must be analyzed.“Cases” in judicial archives are artificial creations in the operation of the judicial system. The allocation of resources of judicial system under the influence of different local power structures in China and England will create different connotations of “cases”. The severity of the nature of the case, the progress of the case, the litigation costs borne by the parties, and the scope of acceptance of the case have different effects in these two countries. In Qing China, the “dualistic” local power structure composed of magistrates in the formal system and a large number of civil servants who stood outside the formal system resulted in the establishment of the court of first instance in a relatively high level, and the formation stage of cases was relatively late. In early modern England, because it lacked bureaucracy, it mainly used the pattern of power distribution inherent in the social hierarchy to achieve the purpose of governance. The spatial areas from the center to county and parish were roughly matched with the noble, gentry and yeoman in the social hierarchy, that is, they roughly assume the governance responsibilities of the center, county and parish respectively. The magistrates served by the gentry and the constables served by yeoman was half-official and half-civilian in nature. This kind of governance in England is slightly rough in terms of installation of system, but the distinction of identities between officials and citizens is far less obvious than that in Qing China, so it formed a “unitarian” local power structure. The “localization” of the gentry through assuming the office of magistrates resulted in a closer relationship between the state and the society in England. As a result, many minor disputes or crimes can be formed as cases in the court of first instance. This finding tells us that, in England, many types of courts resolve disputes within its judicial system, rather than relying on ADR mechanisms to reduce the pressure on lower courts.
杨松涛. 司法制度资源与地方诉讼案件的形成[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2022, 52(6): 133-145.
Yang Songtao. Resources of Judicial System and the Formation Process of Local Litigations: A Comparison of Early Modern China and England. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(6): 133-145.
1 陈景良： 《讼学、讼师与士大夫——宋代司法传统的转型及其意义》，《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2002年第1期，第58-73页。 2 Sharpe J. A.， Crime in Early Modern England 1550-1750， 2nd edition， London： Routledge， 1999. 3 日］夫马进编： 《中国诉讼社会史研究》，范愉、赵晶等译，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2019年。 4 Herrup C. B.， The Common Peace： Participation and the Criminal Law in Seventeenth-Century England， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1987. 5 Beattie J. M.， Policing and Punishment in London， 1660-1750： Urban Crime and the Limits of Terror， New York： Oxford University Press， 2001. 6 Allen D. H. （ed.）， Essex Quarter Sessions Order Book， 1652-1661， Chelmsford： Essex County Council， 1974. 7 Brewer J. & Styles J. （eds.）， An Ungovernable People： The English and Their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries， London： Hutchinson， 1980. 8 Sharpe J. A.， Crime in Seventeenth-Century England： A County Study， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1983. 9 Ingram M. J.， “Communities and courts： law and disorder in early-seventeenth-century Whiltshire，” in Cockburn J. S. （ed.）， Crime in England， 1550-1800， London： Methuen， 1977， pp. 111-134. 10 Champion W. A.， “Recourse to the law and the meaning of the great litigation decline， 1650-1750： some clues from the Shrewsbury local courts，” in Brooks C. & Lobban M. （eds.）， Communities and Courts in Britain， 1150-1900， London： Hambledon Press， 1997， pp. 179-198. 11 Shoemaker R. B.， Prosecution and Punishment： Petty Crime and the Law in London and Rural Middlesex， 1660-1725， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1991. 12 Landau N.， Justice of the Peace， 1679-1760， Berkeley： University of California Press， 1984. 13 Everitt A.， Landscape and Community in England， London： Hambledon Press， 1985. 14 Lemmings D.， Law and Government in England During the Long Eighteenth Century： From Consent to Command， Basingstoke： Palgrave Macmillan， 2011. 15 Phillips C. B. & Smith J. H. （eds.）， Lancashire and Cheshire from AD 1540， London & New York： Longman， 1994. 16 隗瀛涛主编： 《近代重庆城市史》，成都：四川大学出版社，1991年。 17 Fletcher A.， Reform in the Provinces： The Government of Stuart England， New Haven： Yale University Press， 1986. 18 Fletcher A. J.， “Honor， reputation and local office holding in Elizabethan and Stuart England，” in Fletcher A. & Stevenson J. （eds.）， Order and Disorder in Early Modern England， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1985， pp. 92-115. 19 King P.， Crime， Justice， and Discretion in England， 1740-1820， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2000. 20 Beattie J. M.， Crime and the Courts in England， 1660-1800， Princeton： Princeton University Press， 1986. 21 Eastwood E.， Governing Rural England： Tradition and Transformation in Local Government， 1780-1840， Oxford： Clarendon Press， 1994. 22 Sir Skyrme T.， History of the Justices of the Peace， 2nd edition， Chichester： Barry Rose and the Justice of the Peace， 1994. 23 King P.， “The summary courts and social relations in eighteenth century England，” Past and Present， Vol. 183， No. 1 （2004）， pp. 125-172. 24 Gray D. D.， Crime， Prosecution and Social Relations： The Summary Courts of the City of London in the Late Eighteenth Century， Basingstoke： Palgrave Macmillan， 2009. 25 杨松涛： 《十八世纪英国治安法官司法实践》，《历史研究》2013年第4期，第153-169页。 26 那思陆： 《清代州县衙门审判制度》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2006年。 27 黄敬斌： 《民生与家计：清初至民国时期江南居民的消费》，上海：复旦大学出版社，2009年。 28 巫仁恕、王大纲： 《乾隆朝地方物品消费与收藏的初步研究：以四川省巴县为例》，《“中央研究院”近代史研究所集刊》2015年第89期，第14-20页。 29 Paley R. （ed.）， Justice in 18th-Century Hackney： The Justicing Notebook of Henry Norris and Hackney Petty Session Book， London： London Record Society， 1991. 30 Crittall E. （ed.）， The Justicing Notebook of William Hunt， 1744-1749， Devizes： Wiltshire Record Society， 1982. 31 Silverthorne E. （ed.）， Deposition Book of Richard Wyatt， JP， 1767-1776， Guildford： Surrey Record Society， 1978. 32 吴佩林： 《清代县域民事纠纷与法律秩序考察》，北京：中华书局，2013年。 33 Wrightson K. & Levine D.， Poverty and Piety in an English Village： Terling， 1525-1700， Oxford： Clarendon， 1995. 34 阎步克： 《中国古代官阶制度引论》，北京：北京大学出版社，2010年。 35 日］岸本美绪： 《明清时代的身份感觉》，见［日］森正夫、野口铁郎、滨岛敦俊等编： 《明清时代史的基本问题》，周绍泉、栾成显等译，北京：商务印书馆，2013年，第364-386页。 36 Braddick M.， State Formation in Early Modern England， 1550-1700， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2000.
2022, Vol. 52 
