翻刻
也至＿二干万治に 二年＿一能美郡二万石於＿二新川郡＿一
與＿二一万六千八百石＿一換田也と云是以考れは＿レ之此時未
ㇾ定＿二婦負新川十万石＿一也於＿二 二郡＿一 十万石之朱
印証書四代将軍家綱公賜＿レ之寛文四年也
藩翰譜為＿二正保二年＿一非也
一本封叙次考に云寛永十六年六月利次君十万
石利治君分知之時二侯之釆知所未＿レ定所々
散在也如＿二今日の＿一定者万治三年以来也又云五世
松雲公万治元年閏十二月徴妙公養老遺領賜＿レ之
同三年富山大聖寺之両侯易村轉地也富山
旧記作＿二万治二年＿一
一右如＿二條件＿一富山大聖寺両藩領地替に付
従＿二幕府之朱印証書賜度且江州今津
弘川領も朱印証書に記載相成様幕府へ
上申阿り其文如＿レ左
口上之覚
一権現様台徳院様大猷院様御三代之
御朱印肥前守致頂戴候然處慶安三
年寅三月本郷之屋敷類火に逢候刻
焼失仕候写を御座候事
一右御三代之御朱印には三け国統肥前守
致頂戴候其後隠居仕候刻同姓淡
現代語訳
万治二年に至り、能美郡二万石を新川郡において一万六千八百石と交換田したという。これを以って考えてみれば、この時はまだ婦負・新川十万石は定まっていなかった。二郡において十万石の朱印証書は四代将軍家綱公がこれを賜った寛文四年のことである。『藩翰譜』が正保二年としているのは間違いである。
一、『本封叙次考』に言う。寛永十六年六月、利次君十万石、利治君の分知の時、二侯の采地の所在はまだ定まらず、所々に散在していた。今日のように定まったのは万治三年以来のことである。また言う、五世松雲公は万治元年閏十二月に徴妙公の養老遺領を賜った。同三年に富山・大聖寺の両侯が村替え・転地を行った。『富山旧記』は万治二年と記している。
一、右の条件の通り、富山・大聖寺両藩の領地替えについて幕府から朱印証書を賜りたく、また江州今津・弘川領も朱印証書に記載されるよう幕府へ上申したことがある。その文は左の通りである。
口上之覚
一、権現様・台徳院様・大猷院様御三代の御朱印を肥前守が頂戴いたしました。しかし慶安三年寅三月、本郷の屋敷が類火に遭った時に焼失いたしました。写しは御座います。
一、右の御三代の御朱印には三ヶ国を統べる肥前守が頂戴いたしました。その後隠居いたした時、同姓の淡
英語訳
By Manji 2, the 20,000 koku of Nomi District were exchanged for 16,800 koku in Niikawa District. Considering this, the 100,000 koku of Nei and Niikawa districts were not yet fixed at this time. The vermillion seal certificate for 100,000 koku in the two districts was granted by the fourth shogun Ietsuna in Kanbun 4. The "Hankanfu" record stating it was Shōhō 2 is incorrect.
1. "Honpō Joji-kō" states: In the sixth month of Kan'ei 16, when Lord Toshinao received 100,000 koku and Lord Toshiharu received his divided grant, the locations of both lords' domains were not yet determined and were scattered in various places. They were consolidated as they are today from Manji 3 onward. It also states that the fifth lord Matsun-kō received the retirement domain of Chōmyō-kō in the intercalary twelfth month of Manji 1. In the same third year, both lords of Toyama and Daishōji conducted village exchanges and land transfers. "Toyama Old Records" records this as Manji 2.
1. Regarding the territorial exchange between Toyama and Daishōji domains as per the above conditions, there was a petition to the shogunate requesting vermillion seal certificates, and also that the Ōmi Province domains of Imazu and Hirokawa be included in the vermillion seal certificates. The text is as follows:
Memorandum of Oral Statement
1. Hizen-no-kami received vermillion seals from the three generations of Gongen-sama, Taitoku-in-sama, and Daiyū-in-sama. However, in the third month of tiger year, Keian 3, they were lost in a fire when the Hongō residence was caught in a conflagration. Copies exist.
1. In the vermillion seals of the aforementioned three generations, Hizen-no-kami received governance over three provinces. When he later retired, his relative with the same surname, Tan-