The criminal jurisdiction of all feudal lords such as daimyo, hatamoto, court nobles (kuge _??__??_), temples and shrines during the Tokugawa period may be divided into two types : adjudication of criminality (tegiri-gimmi _??__??__??__??_) and sentencing and execution (tegiri-shioki _??__??__??__??_). The former means jurisdiction to try and ascertain criminality, and the latter jurisdiction to determine and impose penalties without shogunate approval (ukagai _??_).
Like the daimyo jurisdiction to adjudicate criminality, the jurisdiction to adjudicate criminality of the hatamoto was limited to their vassals and employees (kachiu _??__??_) based upon the feudal relationship and commoners registered on their fief (chigyosho _??__??__??_). After the Tenmei (_??__??_) period (1781-1789), however, jurisdiction over cases in which the penalties of beheading with exposure (gokumon _??__??_) or more severe penalties were to be imposed was assumed by the shogunate courts, and after 1820 jurisdiction over cases to be punished by exile to an island (onto _??__??_) was also absorbed by the shogunate courts.
Though the jurisdiction of the daimyo to sentence and execute included capital punishment, the hatamoto could not impose capital punishment upon commoners in their domains without shogunate approval. The hatamoto's jurisdiction over their retainers was so much broader than over commoners that the hatamoto could put their retainers to death without appeal to the shogunate.
Compared to the power of daimyo, that of hatamoto as feudal lords was much more limited as mentioned above. There were not a few hatamoto who would not even fully exercise their recognized jurisdiction themselves. They often ask the shogunate courts or daimyo or bigger hatamoto which might be their main family (honke _??__??_) to exercise this jurisdiction in their stead.
At the end of the Tokugawa Period, the shogunate revived the Kanto deputy (Kanto gundai _??__??__??__??_) and charged him with the duty of administering criminal justice for small hatamoto within the Kanto-area (Kanhasshu _??__??__??_).

View full abstract

This is a case study on the subject taking up the villages in Aichi prefecture as an instance. The ownership of common owned by the village during this period shows the following changes.
(1). Iriaichi (common) owned by the village was open to the common use of the villagers since the government estates and private estates had been differentiated in 1876, and its control was exercised by yoriai (meeting) of the whole villagers. Therefore, iriaichi owned by the village in this stage belonged, as a private estate, to the customary village as a community of the whole villagers.
(2) Then it was changed by the reorganization of murakata-system and the formation of the landholder system under the three new laws of 1878. That is, as a result of the establishment of the town and village assemblies and the controlling power of the landholders over the community, the power to control and dispose of iriaichi owned by the village was shifted from the group of the whole villagers who had iriaiken to the legislatures of the village or town. Consequently iriaichi owned by the village became to be regarded as a property of the village as an administrative unit.
(3) After the establishment of kochokanku (the sphere under the control of kocho) in 1884, the villages differentiated into two types : an independent village as administrative unit and a village as united kochokankus. The ownership of iriaichi also differentiated accordingly.

View full abstract

The Wu _??_ dynasty, from the outset, established supremacy. of the central government over the chieh-tu-shih _??__??__??_ Tit and tz'u-shih _??__??_ through the gradual centralization of the military powers, and strengthened the bureaucratic character of chieh-tu-shih and tz'u-shih through the frequent rotation of their posts. This policy involved contradiction in itself, which strengthened the power of the central government over them on one hand, but weakened to penetrate the governmental power into the local area, because those who held the controlling power of the government came chiefly from the area which was nothern from the Yang-tse river while the most of the territories of the Wu dynasty were southern part from the river.
The southern T'ang _??__??_ dynasty which succeeded the Wu dynasty, in order to solve the above stated contradiction; appointed a large number of literati coming from its own territories (which were southern from the river) to the important offices in its administration, and these literati-officials became the chief bearer of the governmental power taking over the places of the warriors who lost their influence. However, they were merely a sort of Patrimonialbeamte, just as the warriors were, having no inherent ground of authority but relying on the Emperor's arbitrary favour.
The government of the southern Tang dynasty was, as clearly indicated by its policy and the origin of its personnel, rather reactionary one, having strong surviving influence of the T'ang _??_ dynasty, to prevent the development of the productivity, and invited discontent and revolt of the minor officials and the newly rising class which. obtained the name of hsing-shih-hu _??__??__??_ in the Sunk _??_ period. Therefore, the southern T'ang dynasty was collapsed and destroyed by the attack of the later Chou _??__??_ and the Sung dynasty
The Sung dynasty, after its conquest of the area which was southern from the Yang-tse river, had made the government officials of the southern T'ang dynasty remove to the northern part of China, and this caused to eliminate the power of the old ruling class which was the barrier against the development of the productivity in this area. Consequently, after the middle period of the northern Sung _??__??_ dynasty, the increment of the productivity in this area was rapid and the area which was southern from the river became politically and economically superior to the northern China.

View full abstract

In the rural community of Japan during the Tokugawa period, the social status of the farmers was subdivided into several classes according to the hereditary prestige of each family which was called kakaku (family status). The syoya (village headman) was usually elected from among the farmers of the upper kakaku. But in the district where the kakaku was adhered rigidly, the status of mura-yakunin (village official) as such did not mean that he was of the upper kakaku, and the kakaku was so important that the precedence at meetings was fixed with it.
At that time there were two movements, opposed to each other, concerning to the kakaku. The one stressed that keeping to the kakaku was selfgoverning rules of the rural community; the other boosted for the possibilities of social mobility, so that the wealthy farmers might gain equal standings through removing restrictions caused by the kakaku.
In Hino-shinden in the Mino country (now within the Gifu city), it was a prerogative of the farmers of the upper kakaku to fit up their houses with hisashi (eaves) accessories. Several documents are found, dated in the first half of the nineteenth century, which inform us about the concrete cases of litigations concerning to the hisashi accessories, for the farmers of the lower kakaku also became jealous to furnish with them.
This article introduces such documents and refers to the procedures of those litigations.

View full abstract

There were two families named Yamamura Jimbei and Chimura Heiemon among the followers of the feudal lord of Owari (present Nagoya), one of the three cadet families of the Tokugawa. These families, while they were the followers of the feudal lord of Owari, had also alleged service and loyalty directly towards the Tokugawa and were actually subject to both of them. Under, the feudal system in Japan, generally speaking, the follower was requested rigid loyalty to his lord alone as the maxim that "the loyal follower would never be subject to the other lord" shows., Therefore these cases of Yamamura and Chimura should be said the exceptional ones. Doppelvcasallität, though it existed, did not present so clear and perfect form as we see in that or Piuralvasallität of the medieval Germany. Their status was an imperfect form of Doppelvasallität and very much like the single relationship with the lord of Owari. The reason why these two families had acquired such a status as Doppelvasallität seems to me that the. lord of Owari, their lord, and the Tokugawa had been regarded as one, lord because the former was one of the branches of the latter.

View full abstract

In Italy there had been a long period so-called the dark age in the various fields such as social, economic and cultural after the downfall of the Roman Empire. This dark age was, at the same time, the age of conflict between the traditional Roman legal institution and the Germanic legal institution which was brought into with the invasion of the German, and there was gradually growing up the ground for realization of the Italian unifying movement by the "Italians".The evidence of this fact is fusion of the Roman law and the Germanic law mediated also by the cannon law, or the formation of the new customary practices which wass more Germanic. This article deals with the process of this transformation through the testamentum, legitima pars and several other practices concerning the succession.

View full abstract