Cet article fait suite a une etude precedente sur les rapports des communes francaises et dos couches gouvernantes dans la societe feodale; nous essayons maintenant de mettre davantage en lumiere la ville medievale dauas la societe feodale, selon les documents rouennais allant du XI^e au premier quart du Xlll^e siele. Nous savons que les Etablissements de Rouen (Stabilimentum communie Rothomagi), concedes entre 1174 et 1183 par Henri II, roi d'Angleterre, representent l'etape la plus monumentale dans l'evolution du droit urbain a Rouen. Si nous examinons les differents articles, nous constatons que cette loi est loin d'etre liberale en ce qui concerne la concession des privileges a la commune: d'une part, l'autonomie judiciaire communale se limite a la juridiction civile d'autre part, des differents organes de la magistrature communale, da'finis minutieusement dans les Etablissements de Rouen, sont consideres comme les dernieres instances de l'admimaistration royale. Cette loi est un octroi qui favorise principalement le patriciat, compose de riches marchands specialises dans le commerce a longue distanace et dont l'existence a Rouen est par ailleurs attestee par quelques sources narratives anterieures; ces marchands ont en effet besoin d'une juridiction civile autonome pour proteger leurs transactions comunerciales et immobilieres. Il faut noter aussi que les Etablissements de Rouen, en precisant les obligations dues par la commune et reparties d'ailleurs sur tous les bourgeois, garantissent au roi anglais certains profits. Les Etablissements de Rouen presentent donc le meme caractere que les chartes octroyees jusqu'a la premiere moitie du XII siele et qui ont gratifie le patriciat rouennais de larges privileges commerciaux, en particulier la charte de 1144 concedee par Geoffroi d'Anjou; ces Etablissements de Rouen et ces clnartes demeurent cependant reservees a la concession de l'autonomie communale. On pourrait dire qu'il s'agit la d'une expressiona des interets communs des classes gouvernantes feodales et du patriciat urbain qui reste nettement separe du Commun. La prise de Rouero par Philippe Auguste en 1204 semble changer profondement la situation. Dans une conventio de cette annee-la en effect, dans laquelle le roi capetien definit les conditions de la capitulation, ce ne sont pas la noblesse, ni le clerge qui sont acceptee en tant que vrais representants de la ville, mais la commune de bourgeois. Philippe Auguste, ayant reconnu les Etablissements de Rouen peu apres la capitulation de la ville, elargit en 1207 l'autonomie judiciaire communale, par la concession d'une juridiction criminelle etendue et affranchit les bourgeois de la mainmorte: ce sont la les privileges dont peuvent beneficier tous les habitants urbain. Il est facile de deceler sous cet acte de Philippe Auguste, applique aussi a plusieures villes arrachees alors a la domination anglaise, un but precis, celui de lever un service militaire important. L'originalite de la politique communale de ce roi consiste, comme nous l'avons souligne dans notre article precite, a creer une relation "synallagmatique" entre la royaute et les communes: la royaute accorde en effet une large liberte et une grande autonomie a ces dernieres, qui, de leur cote, consentent au service militaire au meme titre que les vassaux directs du roi. Rouen, par sa nature meme de centre tres important de commerce et de strategie, attire beaucoup l'attention des classes dominantes et, partant, doit montrer une disposition a s'associer aux interets royaux plus marquee que les autres villes ordinaires. Cependant, c'est bien cette particularite rouennaise, qui nous permet de voir combien la ville medievale, qualifiee d' "anti-feodale" ou de "a-feodale" par certains auteurs est integree

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

Since the 16th century k'angtsu 抗租-the uprisings of tenant farmers (tienhu 佃戸) against landowners-had widely been taking place in the villages in the Chiang-nan delta. These uprisings were seen also in irrigation communities such as yu〓 or chin.〓 Earlier it was the landowners engaging themselves in agriculture that controlled and took responsibility for the irrigation of yu. In the late Ming and the early Ch'ing dynasties these landowners rapidly declined and gave way to hsiangshen 郷紳, the gentry who owned vast lands living in the cities and towns. Consequently there arose a change in the matter of irrigation. In the early Ch'ing age the self-farming small landowners in Chang-hsing 長興, Fu-chou Prefecture, who had lost their former power and were declining, failed to carry out their responsibility for irrigation and suffered severe sccusations and violet offences by tenant farmers. On an occasion when there was a flood tenant farmers intruded into a landowner's house, destroyed part of it by tearing some of the lumber off the house, dug his land to carry away some mud and dirt, and used their loot for repairing the damaged chenkeng 〓〓-the embankment of a chen 〓. Such an incident was a common one. In the late Ming and early Ch'ing dynasties the new irrigation practice with chaot 'ien-p'aii 照田派役-the assignment of labor and expenses according to acreage of farms-as its main feature was established by the state power all over the Chiang-nan delta. The situation was the same everywhere in Fu-chou Prefecture. In our Chang-hsing too, the reform on the same line wa carried out by the governor (chihhsien 知県) in order to mitigate the sharp conflict between the landowners and the tenant farmers and to protect the small landowners. In the Yung-cheng 雍正 and the Ch'ienlang 乾隆 periods the uprisings of tenant farmers subsided to some extent. Behind this was the reorganization of irrigation practice by the intervention of the state power.

View full abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyse the market structure of the Japanese shipbuilding industry and to inquire into the formation of an actual monopoly system in the shipbuilding industry in the nineteen-twenties. In this analysis, we want to take a serious view of the side of demand, that is to say, we want to see the relation of the shipbuilding industry to the shipping industry and the Navy Office (Kaigunsho). For it was the most important factor that determined the structure of the monopoly. In the nineteen-twenties the scale of the market was greatly reduced and the price fo ships went down. Many large trampers having become bankrupt, it was only the two big liners, Nippon Yusen and Osaka Shosen, to give their names, that presented demand for ships. Those two liners and Mitsubishi Zosen stably combined in the market. This combination was supported by the two factors. One was the relation of Konzern. Both Mitsubishi Zosen and Nippon Yusen belonged to Mitsubishi Konzern. The other was the monopoly of the technology to produce internal combustion engines (Diesel engines). In the nineteen-twenties, shipping interests, especially liners, were under the necessity to improve power of ships. As the competition with foreign shipping capital intensified, Japanese liners were obliged to make their ships sail faster so as to realize rapider transit and reduce the cost of sailing. This need of liners was met by the adoption of Diesel engines. In the latter half of the nineteen-twenties when requirement of the two big liners became acute, it was Mitsubishi Zosen that corresponded to it. Mitsubishi Zosen, therefore, came to dominate the market of merchant ships. On the other hand, the monopoly system was established in the market of warships. Washington Treaties conditioned the limitation of armaments and in the reduced market scale Mitsubishi Zosen and Kawasaki Zosen dominated the market. The monopoly of war supplies was supported by the relation between the Navy Office and the shipbuilding enterprises exclusively under contract with the Navy Office. As a result, the actual monopoly system in the shipbuilding industry with Mitsubishi Zosen as its center was established in the nineteen-twenties.

View full abstract