二日、加賀守富樫政親、建仁寺両足院領同国和気保内鍋谷及び
打越（うちこし）保善院領の百姓に命じて、寺家代官大西帯刀丞（たてわきすけしろ）代に年貢
以下を進納する。

「両足院文書」(一四八七年　長享元年)

建仁寺兩足院領當國和氣内鍋谷并打越寶善院領等之事、去年奉書成され仰せ付けらるると

雖も、今に於いて承引無しと云々、以っての外之次第也、所詮寺家之補任に任せ[　　]年貢

諸納[　　　]先々大西帶刀[　　　]沙汰致すべき之由、仰せらるる[　　　]、仍って執達の

件の如し、
長享元　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（折紙見返シ、後筆）
十月二日　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　永秀（花押）「加判槻[　 ][　　　]
                                                                  (橋か)
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 （槻橋）
親長（花押）日下安[　　　]

兩足院領
百姓中(pp.353-354)

This document was issued by the Togashi household on behalf of Ryōsokuin, an affiliate temple of Kenninji, who were having difficulties in extracting tithes from the peasants of Wake no Ho Nabetani and Uchikoshi Hōzenin. Despite orders being handed down from the shōgunate, they had not been acknowledged, which the writer found outrageous. Therefore payment of tithes was to be made to Ōnishi Tatewaki Sukeshiro under orders of the shugo household. What this source reveals is that firstly, the commoners of this section of Kaga were refusing to obey the directives of the shugo household, and that they`d done so for about two years. Hence either the shugo was too preoccupied to resolve the situation themselves, or they lacked the ability to resolve this situation, hence the issue of the next monjo.

急度沙汰有るべく
 御年貢之事、きとさたあるへく候、
（保、以下同ジ）　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（富樫政親）
法善院之儀に就き、御奉書并御門跡より放状（はなちじょう）、同じ御屋形様より御しゆん
（遵行）
きやう御成（なり）候の間、番頭之所二置き申さるべく候、委細は彼上使御申し有るべ

き候、恐々謹言、
長享元　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（能美）
十月十八日　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　郡中

法善院
番頭殿 (pp.354)

「本文小野方在り、留守の時若猍請取る」

兩足院領并保善院領等之事、去年當院に補任（ぶにん）す、同ジ善法寺渡状明鏡之上

は、度々に及び奉書成され候の處、善法寺御代官爲（として）、今に於いて御押妨之段

然るべからず、早く御成敗之旨に任せ、當院代官大西帯刀丞代に渡し去るる候へば、尤も

候、若猶御違亂候えば勿体無く候、恐々謹言、

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 　山川三川守
十一月二日　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 　高藤判

能美
三个庄御代官
（三郎左衛門尉）
小野殿
御宿所　(pp.354-355)

This document reveals a little more about the situation at the local level. Apparently another retainer of the Togashi, Yamakawa Mikawa no Kami Takafuji, stated that documents relating to appointments to Ryōsokuin relayed via message from Zenhōji, documents which made matters abundantly clear and which were followed by occasional correspondence from the Bakufu, as a Daikan of Hōzenji this Ōno character was not to engage in acts of wantonness or theft of land, and was to hand over matters to Ōnishi of Hōzenin and Ryōsokuin (by hand over matters was meant `give land back to`). This was thought to be most reasonable. Morevoer, if any further disturbances were reported, this would be regarded as very unfortunate. One question that remains unanswered is if Ōno was engaging in acts of destruction, was he doing this entirely alone or with the aid of the commoners, and were both of them responsible for the continuing non-payment of tithes – did this Ōno person later appear acting on behalf of Honganji or another Ikkō temple, and does the name appear in other ikki related documents?

(折紙見返シ端書)
「山川三河殿高藤」
　　（能美郡）
以前打越之賣劵謀書（ぼうしょ）也、其分存知すべく者也、
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（富樫政親）
兩足院領年貢の事、公方奉書并御屋形御遵行之處、今に於いて年貢等難澁之由、言語道斷

之次第也、早く御成敗之旨に任せ、其沙汰致すべし、若猶無沙汰有らば、一段成敗致さ

るるべき者也、仍って状の件の如し、
長享元　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 （山川）
十一月六日　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　   高藤（花押）

両足院領
打越
百姓中 　鍋谷川内　(p.355)

The efforts made earlier to have the daikan and commoners pay their tithes do not appear to have produced the effect that the authors were wishing for, hence the next step of issuing orders to all inhabitants under the name of a deputy to the shugo. It was absolutely outrageous that no payment of tithes had been made for this year, and despite orders from the Bakufu and the shugo, non-payments still continued, which was obsolutely unforgivable. Hence a threat (of sorts) was made of harsher punishments to follow if these duties were not carried out.

加州兩足院領并保善院領の事、本院補任同ジ善法寺の渡状之旨に任せ、度々奉書成さ

るる之處、善法寺の渡状謀書之由申すと云々、言語道斷之次第也、猶以って承引無ければ、
(姓、以下同ジ)
百性爲（として）此趣を相屆（あいとどけ）、彼代官之證状（しょうじょう）取り上げるべ

し、若然らずば、上意厳重之砌（みぎり）、此如し押領の沙汰の限非ず（あらず）者歟、所

詮早く當院之代官大西帯刀丞代に居置（いおき）、年貢・諸公事等先々の如し其沙汰致すべ

し、此上免角（めんかく）の儀あれば、罪科に處（しょう）すべき之由、仰せ出ださる也、

仍って執達の件の如し、
長享元
十一月六日　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　永秀（花押）
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 （槻橋）
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 親長（花押）

兩足院
　　　　　　　 百性中
保善院 (pp.355-356)

This monjo was written on the same day as the previous one, however this time is was sent by two other retainers of the shugo household, and again addressed to the commoners. It states that despite entrusting to Ōnishi and Ōno letters outlining matters pertaining to Ryōsokuin and Hōzenin, and despite the issue of orders from the Bakufu to this effect, it turns out that the letter from Zenhōji (of which Ōno was a representative) was a fake, which is an absolutely outrageous situation. Moreover if this fact was not acknowledged and the outstanding tithes paid, the matter would be relayed to the commoners and their daikan (aka Ōno) would have to produce evidence to the effect that the tithes had been paid. If this was not done, measures would be taken, which would not be confined merely to punishment for property invasions. Eventually all matters were to be entrusted to Ōnishi, who would have the responsibility to ensure that tithes and public duties were carried out as before. If any objections were made, they would be sentenced to punishment. So in sum, it was a letter virtually threatening the commoners if the tithes were not produced, yet again it apparently had no effect. For the following monjo says a lot about the situation at hand, and why the commoners may have been so reluctant to pay their tithes when ordered by the shugo`s deputies.

(端書)
「しうかうせうくわん
　しやうせい　　　　｣

急度折紙を以って申し入れ候、、仍って寶善院上使爲（として）御下り候上は、早々諸納所

へ沙汰あるへく候、いせんき度々申し付け候處二、難澁勿体無く存す候、ことに京とより
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（富樫政親）     （遵行）
堅く仰せ付けらる候て、御屋形様御しゆんきやう御下り候上は、しさいあるへからす候、

恐々謹言、
（長享元年）　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 （能美）
十二月二日　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　郡中より
（松岡寺蓮綱）

This document reveals that in matters pertaining to Hōzenin, an order has been released instructing the inhabitants to pay their tithes, yet despite such instructions they have refused to pay. This instruction has been handed down from Masachika himself, hence they expect it to be obeyed by the Nōmi gobō. This monjo itself suggests that the gun did not in fact have ties to the Ikkō sect, for here they are acting on behalf of the shugo in dictating to Shōkōji the terms for payment of tithes by the peasantry of Hōzenin, who, as this document suggests, must have been affiliated with the Ikkō shū (which also suggests that Ōno was also an Ikkō league member). Yet this leads to no greater clarity on the structure of the gun nor their allegiances. Quite possibly the gun would act on behalf of whichever institution they believed who help to restore public safety and security in Nōmi. This means that they were less of a religious instrument and merely an organization devoted to local defence.
However, note that this was for one gun only (that of Nōmi), whereas other gun quite clearly had ties with Honganji. What we might suggest is that the gun did consist of bands of kokujin status landowners and their retainers, acting on behalf of institutions they believed were capable of representing the interests of their territory. This meant that some were affiliated with Honganji, and others were independent. The question is, if the gun were divided between affiliates to Honganji and independent gun, at what point did these independent gun choose to ally themselves with the institution of Honganji, as would happen in the aftermath of the overthrow of Masachika in 1488?