淸代 流配犯의 實相과 地方의 管理策 -四川省 巴縣의 사례를 중심으로-

Abstract

For a long time in Chinese history, controlling the floating population was a task undertaken to guarantee the flow of tax revenues, secure the labor force, and control the populace. However, unlike controlling the floating population, there was a type of exile with the combined aim of punishing criminals and reinforcing the frontier. However, exiles during the Qing era were not forced to perform labor, nor were they excluded from the general public. Therefore, from the government’s perspective, the exiles were pitiful subjects who lived painful days away from their hometowns, and were simultaneously potential offenders who could commit crimes again. The 18th century was a time when military exiles’ place was fixed in general counties and the problem of managing them in the local areas emerged. Examining local officials’ comments about exiles at that time, it can be seen that there was concern that criminals could escape from the place of exile or engage in crime. At the root of this was the idea that “the exile is a person who has committed a felony and has a bad nature” and “the exile causes trouble due to hardships in life.” The two are not unrelated, but they led to different solutions, heavy punishment for recidivism or escape and livelihood assistance for exiles. However, in either way, the premise was to maintain the then existing punishment system. Unless it was fundamentally reformed, it was inevitable that exiles would accumulate in local areas; however, the central government ignored the side effects of managing exiles, or could not reform it, and delegated it to the provinces. From the standpoint of officials who needed to manage exiles, they were those that the emperor had spared from death, so they could not be left alone to die. At the same time, escape and recidivism by exiles were directly linked to the fact that they were disciplined to not manage exiles. Under these circumstances, officials had to take measures to control them to avoid punishment, and sometimes left that management to long-standing exiles. Although there is no historical material that explains why, it is thought that long-standing exiles were less likely to go against the instructions of the government than others and would not bother the general public if problems occurred. The cases in the Ba County Archives show the conditions of exiles—their livelihood, poverty, and sometimes, escape. Under these circumstances, local officials took measures to stabilize their rule and ensure that exiles did not avoid punishment, and thus sometimes left the duty of managing criminals to long-standing exiles. Unless the old punishment system was fundamentally reformed, exiles would inevitably accumulate in local areas; however, the central government did not reform the system, and instead delegated it to each province.