奏請視為官者犯罪緣由輕重而分別制定其子孫可否承襲官爵事(附件：諭旨一道納親此奏議行necin i ere wesimbuhe be gisurefi yabubuha)
Yongzheng-era memorial

鑲白旗滿洲都統、果毅公、大臣納欽恭敬地上奏說： 有一些我知道的情況，特意寫出來上奏，請皇上明察。我查檔發現，雍正三年時，有個三等侍衛兼佐領叫雅圖，因爲他妻子自盡去世，就被革了職，而且不讓他的兒子承襲。當時有人把這事奏報了，皇上批示說：“雅圖的案子，是毆打家中奴僕致死、妻子自殺，這屬於他家裏的私事，因此不能把職位交給他的兒子。要是犯了死刑之類的重罪，才說得上不讓承襲。既然這樣，你們一起商議，哪些等級的罪可以讓子孫承襲，哪些罪不能，一條條議明白了再上奏。”遵照這個旨意，領侍衛內大臣和八旗的都統們一起商議後，重新上奏說：“從今以後，凡是承襲的世職，如果是因爲私事犯罪，而且所犯屬於‘十惡’條款裏的，就不讓他的子孫承襲。涉及人命、判了斬刑或絞刑的，即使皇上開恩免了死罪，也不讓子孫承襲，可以讓他親兄弟的兒子承襲。如果親兄弟也沒有兒子，就由該旗查明最初設立這世職的緣由，連同家譜一併奏報，請皇上定奪。除此之外，如果是因爲私事犯了枷號、鞭責的罪被革職的，那他的子孫、親兄弟等人，仍然可以照常承襲。如果僅僅是革職，沒有捱過枷號鞭責的，那就照樣讓他的子孫承襲。”這個意見奏上去後奉旨執行，並記入了檔案。 可是現在，八旗大臣在挑選襲職人選時，並沒有完全按照原來定下的條例辦，只要犯過枷號鞭責這類罪被革職的人，心裏首先就把他們的子孫排除，不許參加承襲，這樣的情況非常多。我仔細琢磨：犯枷號鞭責罪被革職的人裏面，如果所犯的罪比較輕，應該給予體恤，仍然准許他們的子孫參加承襲，這恰恰是念在當初設立世職的人爲國出力、有功勞的情分上。依我的愚見，從今以後，但凡是因爲家裏私事犯枷號鞭責罪被革職的，除了照原定條例讓他們的子孫承襲之外，如果是自己踐踏法紀、貪贓受賄、勒索偷盜等自己作出來的罪行，因此被革職並受了枷號鞭責的，這些人的子孫就一概不準承襲。至於因爲公事上出了差錯，被枷號鞭責的，也照私事犯枷號鞭責的例子，準其子孫和親兄弟等人一起被挑選承襲。如果這樣做的話，當前那些被革職、獲罪的人，能感念皇上隆恩，而那些有世職的人，想到日後子孫可能承襲不了，就會畏懼而不敢輕易去犯重罪，各自向好處走。這事兒該不該這麼辦，請皇上明察裁定。 爲此，我恭敬地上奏請旨。雍正十三年十月初十，納欽。這份奏摺經討論後，被批准施行了。

鑲白旗滿洲旗管理旗務大臣、公達春，大臣訥欽謹奏：為略知下情，謹臚陳奏，仰祈睿鑒事。伏查，雍正三年，三等侍衛兼牛錄章京雅圖，因其妻自縊身故，革職並不準其子孫承襲等情，曾具奏。奉上諭：雅圖之罪，係毆打家奴致死，其妻自縊，此乃其家務私事，因此，不可令其子承襲。若為公罪，方可。既是如此，爾等一同會議，何種罪應準承襲，何種罪不應準襲，詳細議定具奏。欽此。經領侍衛內大臣及八旗都統等共同會議覆奏，議定：嗣後凡世襲官員，因私事獲罪，若在十惡之內者，不準其子承襲；因人命案擬斬絞之罪，雖蒙恩赦免，仍不準其子承襲，令其胞兄弟之子承襲；若胞兄弟又無子，由該旗查明原立官緣由，將家譜一併具奏，請旨。此外，因私事擬以徒杖之罪革職者，其子孫及胞兄弟仍準一體出仕。若僅止革職者，照常準其子孫承襲。等因議奏，奉旨依議，在案。今八旗大臣於辦理世襲官員承襲時，並未遵奉原定章程，惟因徒杖之罪革職者，即將其本支子孫裁汰，不準入選者甚多。謹思因徒杖之罪革職者內，其罪情輕微者，矜恤仍準其子孫入選承襲，實係體恤原立官之人效力國家之至意。臣等愚見，請嗣後凡因家務私事，擬以徒杖之罪革職者，其子孫仍照定例準入選承襲外，若因玩法貪財，詐欺、盜竊、嚇詐等項，自取罪戾革職者，其子孫概不準入承襲。其因公獲罪擬徒杖者，亦照家務私事徒杖例，將其子孫及胞兄弟一體準其出仕。如此，則現時革職獲罪之人，得蒙聖主隆恩，而承襲官員，日後畏懼其子孫不得承襲，不敢私犯重罪，各知自愛，可歸於善。是否可行，伏候聖主睿鑒。為此謹奏請旨。 雍正十三年十月初十日，訥欽等議奏，奉旨準行。

The Minister in Charge of the Bordered White Manchu Banner, Duke Dacun, and Minister Nacin, respectfully memorialize: To humbly present matters within our knowledge, we submit this memorial for Your Majesty’s wise discernment. Upon investigation, in the third year of Yongzheng (1725), the Third Class Imperial Guard cum Niru Janggin, Yatu, was impeached and dismissed from office, and his descendants were barred from inheriting the title, because his wife hanged herself. An imperial edict was issued: Yatu’s crime—beating a household slave to death, and his wife subsequently hanging herself—is a private domestic matter. Therefore, his sons may not inherit the title. Only if it were a public offense could they inherit. In accordance, you are to jointly deliberate and report in detail: what types of offenses should permit inheritance, and which should not. Respectfully obeying this, the Ministers of the Imperial Guard and the Eight Banner Commander-in-Chiefs jointly deliberated and reported: Henceforth, for any hereditary official who commits a private offense falling within the “Ten Abominations,” his sons shall not inherit. For those sentenced to death by beheading or strangulation in homicide cases, even if pardoned by imperial grace, their sons shall still not inherit; inheritance shall go to the sons of their full brothers. If they have no full brothers with sons, the respective banner shall investigate the original establishment of the title and submit a genealogical chart along with a memorial requesting imperial decision. Apart from these, for private offenses punished only with penal servitude or flogging and dismissal, the descendants and full brothers shall still be allowed to enter official service. For those merely dismissed without further punishment, their descendants may inherit as usual. This memorial was approved and recorded. Currently, when the Eight Banner ministers process hereditary title successions, they do not follow the established regulations but routinely exclude the direct-line descendants of those dismissed with penal servitude or flogging, failing to enroll many. We humbly consider that among those punished with penal servitude or flogging for private offenses, those whose offenses were light should, out of clemency, still have their descendants permitted to inherit—this truly embodies the solicitude for those who originally established the title and served the state. Our humble opinion: Hereafter, for those dismissed and punished with penal servitude or flogging for private domestic matters, their descendants should still be allowed to inherit according to the original rules. However, those who, through greed, fraud, theft, extortion, or similar acts, brought punishment upon themselves and were dismissed, shall have their descendants completely barred from inheritance. As for those punished with penal servitude or flogging for public offenses, their descendants and full brothers shall likewise be allowed to enter official service, following the same rule as for private domestic offenses. In this way, those currently dismissed and punished will receive Your Majesty’s profound grace, and hereditary officials in the future will fear that their descendants might lose the right to inherit, and thus will not dare to privately commit grave offenses, each cherishing self-respect and turning toward virtue. Whether this is proper to enact, we await Your Majesty’s brilliant scrutiny. For this reason, we respectfully memorialize and beseech an imperial decree. On the tenth day of the tenth month of the thirteenth year of Yongzheng (1735), submitted and approved following deliberation by Nacin and others.