司法制度资源与地方诉讼案件的形成

从量化历史角度开展中西诉讼比较，需注意诉讼率数字背后的陷阱，考虑到双方案件具体内涵的不同，我们更应探讨案件形成背后的司法制度根源。司法档案中的“案件”是司法制度运作中的人为制造之物，近代早期中国与英格兰不同的地方权力结构导致其司法制度资源配置的差异，由此对两国在立案时案件性质的严重程度、案件处理所需时间、当事人所需负担的诉讼费用，以及案件受理范围等方面产生了不同影响。归根结底，清代中国二元性地方权力结构使国家与地方社会相对隔膜，而英格兰的一元性地方权力结构使得国家的权力末梢深入到乡村一级，由此导致了两国具有不同的案件形成过程。

Resources of Judicial System and the Formation Process of Local Litigations: A Comparison of Early Modern China and England

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.