The author reviews the following works so far as concerns the subject : Westrup, Introduction to early Roman law II (1934) ; Levy, Neue Bruchstiicke aus den Institutionen des Gaius, in SZ 54 (1934) ; Wieacker, Hausgenossenschaft u. Erbeinsetzung (1940) ; Betti, Das Wesen des altröm. Familienverbandes, in SZ 71 (1954) ; Kaser, Das röm. Privatrecht I (1955) 48-49 ; Yosino, Formation of the legal Concept "proximus adgnatus" in the Twelve Tables (in Japanese), in Senshu-daigaku-ronshu 20 (1959) ; Broggini, Vindex u. Iudex, in SZ 76 (1959) 123-129.

View full abstract

In the Meng-ku Lu-li and the Li-fan-yuan Tse-li, which are well known as the legislation enforced by the Ching dynasty on the Mongol tribes, are to be found laws and precedents originating from the Mongol law, such as penal regulations based on the principle of compensation, and the indigenous marriage regulations. These have been singled out and a comparative study made on the statutes of Western Mongolia-Oirat or Northern Mongolia-Khalkah, of that time because it was thought that the legal usages of Inner Mongolia under the Ching dynasty rule could be redintegrated. In recent years, considerable interest has been aroused in the study of the original text of the Mogol statutes. By making profitable use of the findings, the writer plans to undertake the above study. However, in order to do so, there will be need to clarify the character of the Meng-ku Lu-li and the Li fan-yuan Tse-li, both of which will serve as criteria. Intended to serve as an introduction, so to say, to the above issues, this paper will proceed to make an exclusive discussion of the two statutes.
To date, it is not definitely known when the compendium of statutes appearing in the form of the Meng-ku Lu-li came into being. In this paper, the view is advanced that it actually assumed the semblance of a code referred to as Lu-li by including precedents in the statutes, under instructions from KAO-Tsung, early in the 5th year of the Chien Lung era and most probably became law sometime between the 30th and 40th year of the above Chien Lung era. However, from the standpoint of the principle of personal jurisdiction, a compilation of precedents for the Mongol tribes in actual court proceedings was considered necessary, and it is presumed that, for this reason, a collection of laws and precedents, thought to be the forerunner of the Meng-ku Lu-li, was already in use earlier than the Chien Lung era, in other words, about the middle of the Kang Hsi era. Furthermore, the Meng-ku Lu-li apparently underwent revision a number of times until, in the 19th year of the Chia Ching era (1814), it assumed the form we know today.. On the other hand, the Li-fan-yuan Tse-li dates back to the 16th year of the Chia Ching era, when the Tse-li Compilation Institute was established to undertake revision, and the law was promulgated in the 22nd year of the Chia Ching era (1816). This is considered the oldest legislation. Furthermore, it has been ascertained by means of historical records that the Meng-ku Lu-li, prepared in the 54th year of the Chien Lung era (1789) has served as the original text for compilation of these statutes.
The Meng-ku Lu-li incorporates a number of administrative regulations imposed by the Ching dynasty-on, Mongol, as well as numerous penal and judicial regulations. On the other hand, the Li-fan-yuan Tse-li embodies administrative regulations over a wide scope, embracing the LAMA and Thibetan precedents, together with the Russian precedents, and even penal and judicial regulations, the same as the Meng-ku Lü-li. So far the connection between the two has not been clarified, but because of the fact that the initial compilation of the Li-fan-yuan Tse-li was based on the original text of the Meng-ku Lu-li ; also, that, after completion of the Li fan-yuan Tse-li, revisions were undertaken during the Tao Kuang and Kuang Hsii eras, whereas the Meng-ku Lu-li has remained unchanged since the Chia Ching era, (1814). The writer has thus come to the conclusion that the Meng-ku Lü-li. was absorbed in the Li fan yuan Tse-li; and became, in effect, -defunct as a result. As, from the above, . the nature of the legislation aimed at the Mongol tribes by the Ching dynasty has been clarified, the writer desires hereafter to make a study of the various provisions of the statutes, and to look into the substance of the Mongol law reflected therein, as well as the various legal usages of the people of Inner Mongoria under the Ching dynasty rule.

View full abstract

In Yuan (_??_) period, there were two kinds of the encyclopedia of daily use : " Xinbian-shiwenleiyaogizhagingqian " (_??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??_) (51 vols.) and " Xinbianshiwenlei- jugizhaqingqian" (_??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??__??_) (10 vols.).
The former was used from the end of the 13th century till the first half of the 14th century, the latter from the first half of the 14th century till the late Yuan (_??_) or the eary Ming (_??_) period.
Each of these books describes the 16 forms of the contract; for instance, the contracts on the sale or loan of land and houses, the employment of labourers, and the sale of oxen and horses, etc.
In view of these forms, the village system in the early Yuan (_??_) period was Xiang-Li (_??_-_??_) system, and Li-Du (_??_-_??_) system appeared in the later time and prospered gradually.
Against the theory of Li-Du (_??_-_??_) system (system A), there are two other theories, that is, the theory of Xiang-Du-Cun (_??_-_??_-_??_) system (system B) by Dr. Yoshiyuki Sudô (_??__??__??__??_), and that of Xiang-Li-She (_??_-_??_-_??_) system (system C) by Prof. Li Dong-Fang (_??__??__??_).
How can we understand these three theories?
It is no doubt that the system B is the type of the village in the South-China, and the system C is North-China type.
The system A contains both B and C Systems. In this case, Li (_??_) and Du (_??_) are not in the relation of the upper and lower sides, but they are on an equal level, for Li (_??_) and Du (_??_) are only the examples of the indication of a residence.

View full abstract

The Ryosho is the commentary of the Ryo-no-gige (_??__??__??_) by Kanera Ichijo (_??__??__??__??_, 1402-81), one of the greatest scholars in the Middle Ages. It was the oldest commentary of the Ryo (_??_) except for the Ryo-no-gige and the Ryo-no-shuge (_??__??__??_), and took the lead among the studies of the Ritsuryo (_??__??_) in the Edo era, moreover, was made by a nobleman of the first class who actually lived in the Kuge law (_??__??__??_) into which the Ritsuryo law changed. When we recognize the abovementioned facts, we can safely say that the Ryosho is valuable for the study of the legal history.
Up to now, we have found the Ryosho published only in the Gunsho-ruiju (_??__??__??__??_) series. But there are different copies of the Ryosho handed down as manuscripts. They have some postscripts, some chapters and the epilogue which do not exist in the Ryosho in the Gunsyo-ruiju series.
As a result of examination of these different copies, we reason the process of the formation of the Ryosho as shown under.
The Ryosho was not described by Kanera himself, but was written down by his son Genpo (_??__??_) who listened to Kanera's lecture in Bummei (_??__??_) 8 (1476), and later to it were added some postscripts and some chapters by Fuyura (_??__??_) who also was Kanera's son and also listened to his lecture. Thus the Ryosho was accomplished. Besides, Fuyura probably described the Ryo-no-kikigaki (_??__??__??_) which was based on the Ryosho.
We must come to the conclusion that the Ryosho in the Gunsho-ruiju was arranged by Hokiichi Hanawa (_??__??__??__??_), that is, he boldly cut postscripts and some chapters off the Ryosho, or he revised an incomplete manuscript.

View full abstract

The studies on the law to punish both parties in a quarrel are many, the first being a study undertaken in 1720 (or the 5th year of Kyoho era) by Sorai Ogyu, a noted contemporary scholar, and a number of essays written and books published since the Meiji Restoration by such well-known scholars as Dr. Kaneyuki Miura, etc.
In the present paper, the writer wishes to approach the problem on the basis of the assertions made by the savants mentioned above, from the point of view of the law stipulating the legal procedures to be followed by the Samurai (or Buke), and will try to find a conclusion in the vicissitudes of the procedural law which ruled that any who resorted to quarrel in spite of and disregarding the statutes advising appeal for righteous legal procedures would be deprived once and for all of the right to appear in a court.
Thus, the law providing for simultaneous punishment of both parties in a quarrel seems to imply a terminal point for all these acts and regulations motivated by the necessity to regulate and control all these disorderly acts.

View full abstract

In this paper, the Draft of "Gaku-sei" (the School Educational Law) proclaimed in the 5th year of the Meiji era, the earliest one in Japan, is introduced by means of the Oki-Kyonin Documents kept in the Historical Material Room of Constitutionalism, the National Congress Library. This paper also tried to prove that the executive programme was arranged at the same time when the draft was made, indicating the fundamental principle concerning the application of the law. And then, some other problems, connected with the Educational law, are investigated.

View full abstract