¹ As for recent works related to this problem, see, for example, the following works: “Introduction”, in The Political Economy of Siam, 1851–1910, ed. Nartsupha, Chatthip and Prasartset, Suthy (Bangkok: The Social Science Association of Thailand, 1978), pp. 1–70Google Scholar; Nartsupha, Chatthip, Setthakit muban thai nai adit [Thai village economy in the past] (Bangkok: Sangsan 1984)Google Scholar; Evers, H.D., Korff, Ruediger, and Pas-Ong, Suparb, “Trade and State Formation: Siam in the Early Bangkok Period”, Modern Asian Studies 21, no. 4 (1987): 751–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lysa, Hong, Thailand in the Nineteenth Century: Evolution of the Economy and Society (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1984)Google Scholar; Iausiwong, Nithi, Watthanatham kradumphi kap wannakam ton rattanakosin [Bourgeoisie culture and literature in the early Rattanakosin period] (Bangkok: Thaikhadi Research Institute, Thammasat University, 1982)Google Scholar; Iausiwong, Nithi, “Su prawatsat prachachon thai” [Toward a Thai people's history], Sinlapa watthanatham 9, no. 3 (1988): 42–60Google Scholar; “Introduction and Summary”, in Manarungsan, Somphop, Economic Development of Thailand, 1850–1950: Response to the Challenge of the World Economy (Bangkok: Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1989), pp. 1–30Google Scholar. Works such as Ammar Siamwala, “Foreign Trade and Domestic Economy in Siam (1820–1855)” (Bangkok: mimeo, n.d.), Ingram, James, Economic Change in Thailand, 1850–1970 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar, especially Chapter 1, and Ishii, Yoneo, “Rekishi to inasaku”, in Thai koku-Hitotu no inasaku shakai ed. Ishii, Yoneo (Tokyo: Sobunsha, 1975, pp. 16–45)Google Scholar (“History and Rice-Growing”, in Thailand — A Rice Growing Society, Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press, 1978Google Scholar), are also relevant and interesting.

² Here suai includes levies in kind designated as ken in documents as well unless they were temporary impositions on some special occasions.

³ Nakhon Ratchasima and its satellite provinces muang khun), such as Phutthaisong and Rattanaburi, are, despite their location on the Khorat Plateau, excluded from our examination unless specifically mentioned. The provinces along the Pasak valley, i.e. Lom Sak, Kaen Thao, Dan Sai, as well as Loei are also excluded.

⁴ See Ratchanuphap, Damrong, “Laksana kan pok-khrng prathet siam tae boran” [The manner of government in Siam in the ancient time], in Phunthan thang prawatsat sangkhom lae kanmuang [The foundations of history, society and politics] (Bangkok: Thammasat University, 1973), p. 15Google Scholar, and Wales, H.G.Q., Ancient Siamese Government and Administration (New York: Paragon Book Reprint Corp., Reprint, 1965), pp. 199–200Google Scholar. As for the previous studies on suai, we can find an extensive study done by Kaewkanha, Boonrod, “Kan-kep suai nai samai rattanakosin tn ton, ph s 2325–2411” (The collection of the suai during the early Rattanakosin period, A.D. 1782.1868) (M.A. thesis, Chulalongkorn University, 1975)Google Scholar; Boonmathum, Theerachai, “Kan-kep suai nai huamuang lao fai tawan-k nai chuang ton samai rattanakosin” [The collection of suai in the eastern Lao provinces in the early Rattanakosin period], Warasan thammasat 12, no. 4 (1983): 154–67Google Scholar, which gives a good description of the imposition of suai in the northeast in that period and of its change primarily from an angle of the local power; and Wilson, Constance M., “The Northeast and the Middle Mekong Valley in the Thai Economy: 1830–1870”, in Proceedings of Thai Studies Conference (Canberra: Australian National University, 1987), pp. 169–90Google Scholar. Wilson has already argued the question of the commutation of suai payments from the northeast, and pointed out the development of trade and the monetization of the economy in the region in the mid-nineteenth century. But perhaps because of the limited space, she does not go into details about the process of commutation and the factors that influenced the process.

⁵ It should be noted that the problem of the growth of trade is, in general, separated from the problem of the development of capitalism.

⁶ The author does not believe that the problem of changes and periodization in economic history, in general, could be discussed and determined only by simple quantitative indices. But in this case, the arguments seem to be at a standstill: those who emphasize the predominance of subsistence economy sometimes depend on a few quantitative figures such as estimates of the revenue and trade given by foreign visitors to the Kingdom in the nineteenth century; while others who claim the importance of trade still could not argue effectively against the refutation that the development of trade, if any, was still confined to the areas around Bangkok and that the economy remained mostly subsistence. Therefore, the author thinks that any data which could imply the extent of commercialization in rural or provincial economy in some concrete manner is not completely meaningless.

⁷ See Iausiwong, Nithi, “Su prawatsat prachachon thai”Google Scholar.

⁸ See, for example, Evers, H.D., et al. , “Trade and State Formation”, p. 765Google Scholar, and footnote 13 in the same page.

⁹ Boonrod points out that the south and the tributary states in the north sent little suai. Kaewkanha, Boonrod, “Kan-kep suai nai samai rattanakosin t n ton”, pp. 62, 73, 91–93Google Scholar.

¹⁰ White cloth was levied and sent in money (ngoen) from the beginning. Besides these four major products, 360 kilograms of ivory were levied on Attapu throughout the period covered here. Ramie (pan bai) was also levied on many muang in the region during the second half of the 1830s. But this levy seems to have been discontinued later. As for Ramie (pan bai ken), see, for example, National Library, Bangkok (hereafter NL), documents (čhotmaihet) of the third reign (hereafter CMH.R.III), Lesser Era (Čhunlasakarat) (hereafter C.S.) 1199 no. 2. (C.S. + 638 = A.D.).

¹¹ In fact, “Phongsawadan huamuang monthon isan” states suai imposition had already existed in the Lao and Khmer muang before the Čhao Anou rebellion. See, for example, Mom Amorawongwichit, , “Phongsawadan huamuang monthon isan” [Chronicle of the provinces in the Isan circle], in Prachum phongsawadan [Collected chronicles], phak thi 4 (Bangkok: Khurusapha, 1963), pp. 190, 195, 196, 199, 216, 217, 226, 230Google Scholar. But if there had been regular suai payments to either Lao or Siamese capitals is unknown from the chronicle. See also Boonmathum, Teerachai, “Kan-kep suai nai huamuang lao fai tawan-k”Google Scholar.

¹² Champasak, Khamthongnoi, Khongchiam, Khamthongyai, Khong, and Saphat were levied suai payments in 1827, at the rate of 7 baht per person, while Samia, Sithandon, Salawan, Chiang Taeng, and Saenpang were levied at 4 baht. NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1192 no. 14, in Čhotmaihet ratchakan thi sam [Records of the third reign] (Bangkok: Ratthaban nai Phrabat Somdet phraparamintharamaha Phumiphon Adunlayaded [the government under His Majesty the King Phumiphon Adunlayaded], published for the auspicious celebration of the bicentennial anniversary of the birth of Rama III, 1987), vol. 5, pp. 47–52.

¹³ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1192, no. 14, in Čhotmaihet ratchakan thi sam, vol. 5, pp. 48–49.

¹⁴ For the case of Champasak, see Mom Amorawongwichit, , “Phongsawadan huamuang monthon isan”, p. 275Google Scholar and NL.CMH., the fourth reign (hereafter R.IV), C.S.1229 no. 297; for Ubon, see National Archives, Bangkok (hereafter NA), the fifth reign documents (hereafter R.V), documents of the Krom Mahatthai compiled by the Royal Secretary (Ratchalekhanukan,) Ekasan yep lem Krom Mahatthai [MT(L)] vol. 3: Muang Ubon Ratchathani tp song ngoen suai lae khruang ratchabannakan kap baeng lek pai yu muang Phimun-mangsahan Trakanphutphon Mahachanachai (C.S.1232). However, according to the statement given by Čhao Phrom, who became the čhaomuang (governor) of Ubon Ratchathani in 1866, suai ngoen in Ubon had customarily been collected from the two thirds of 6,000 able-bodied men registered with Ubon at the rate of 2 baht per person. NA.R.V., documents compiled in Special Volumes, Ekasan yep lem saraban samut phiset (RL-PS), vol. 9, thi 257, C.S.1245.

¹⁵ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1193, no. 21. Out of 34,076 baht imposed, 3 quarters were to be sent to the Phrakhlang Mahasombat and a quarter to the Phra Ratchawangbowon.

¹⁶ They were Sangkha, Sisaket, Khukhan, Surin, Kalasin, Yasothon, Khon Kaen, Suwannaphum, Roi Et, Mukdahan, and Khemarat. NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1197 no. 7.

¹⁷ NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1226 no. 304.

¹⁸ Kaewkanha, Boonrod, “Kan-kep suai nai samai rattanakosin t n ton”, p. 89Google Scholar; and see also NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1209 no. 159, and NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1226 no. 304.

¹⁹ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1192 no. 15, in Čhotmaihet ratchakan thi sam, vol. 5, pp. 92–96. Yasothon joined in the following year. The imposition per person was reduced from 6 baht to 4 baht in 1839.

²⁰ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1192 no. 10, in Čhotmaihet ratchakan thi sam, vol. 5, pp. 97–108. Here, Pakwiang and Maet are not included.

²¹ This principle seems to have been established in the region gradually since the second half of the 1840s. Theerachai has described this change in the suai-imposition principle in the cases of Kalasin, Nakhon Phanom, Sakon Nakhon, and their satellite provinces. See Boonmathum, Theerachai, “Kan-kep suai nai huamuang lao fai tawan-k”Google Scholar. Other cases show that the principle was also applied to other provinces in the region, allowing some exceptional cases with part of the manpower kept in reserve for border patrol. See, for example, NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1227 no. 278, NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1230 no. 102, NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1230 no. 144. An example of a population register of Sakon Nakhon as of 1867 lists a total of 3,906 (or 3,806?) adult males: monks and novices (phrasong samanen), 550 (14.1%); the aged (chara), 35 (0.9%); the disabled (phikan), 131 (3.4%); but sak sam, 8 (0.2%); under treatment (raksa tua), 33 (0.8%); mentally ill (sia čhit), 47 (1.2%); possessed by evil spirit? (chamop), 51 (1.3%); the destitute (thuk yak), 80 (2.0%); members of the ruling families and higher officials (thao phia), 291 (7.5%); lower officials with certificate (rap phim), 39 (1.0%); sons of phia officials (but phia), 106 (2.7%); lower officials such as secretaries (samian, thanai), 152 (3.9%); division leaders (nai muat), 38 (1.0%); slave (that), 235 (6.0%); war slaves (chaloei), 52 (1.3%); sons of slaves (luk that), 123 (3.1%); the Kha tribe (kha kaso), 6 (0.2%); temple slaves (kha phra), 70 (1.8%); and able-bodied men (som) 1,859 (47.6%). Besides, there were 1,887 discarded (čhamnai) from the register as dead (tai) and 1,433 had moved out to other newly established provinces. Suai phon-reo was imposed on two thirds of 1,859 able-bodied men (som), i.e. 1,240, at the rate of 6 kilograms or 0.1 hap per person, totalling 7.4 tons or 124 hap per year. NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1229 no. 147.

²² NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1211 no. 112. To cite another example, in 1847, a suai-sending envoy from Yasothon had 15 officials (nai), 30 commoners (phrai), 5 elephants, and 56 oxen, carrying about 1,260 kilograms (20.9 hap) of bastard cardamom, 200 thanan (coconut shells) of lacquer, and 567.5 baht of money (equivalent to 1,680 kilograms or 28 hap of bastard cardamom). NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1209 no. 43.

²³ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1206 no. 181. The envoy was probably sending about 5 baht in weight (75 grams) of suai gold and about 1,200 baht of silver in substitution for suai gold, although the statement in the document remains unclear.

²⁴ There are numerous dispatch documents (bai b k) issued by these muang en route which reported to Bangkok the passages of envoys from the northeastern muang. NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1208 no. 58, in which Saraburi reports the arrival and departure of an envoy from Khon Kaen, is just an example of many such documents.

²⁵ For example, NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1226 no. 304 and NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1227 no. 288 record a large amount of arrears in payments of suai phon-reo and suai ngoen respectively.

²⁶ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1192 no. 17, in Čhotmaihet ratchakan thi sam, vol. 5, pp. 79–83; and NL.CMH. R.III, C.S.1193 no. 34.

²⁷ As far as the documents catalogued under NA.R.V. MT(L). vols. 1–42 suggest, suai payments, in both cases of suai phon-reo and suai ngoen, were mostly monetized in the fifth reign.

²⁸ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1197 no. 7.

²⁹ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1206 no. 186.

³⁰ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1212 no. 136.

³¹ NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1220 no. 183.

³² See, for example, NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1209 no. 109; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1211 no. 47; and NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1216 no. 213.

³³ In fact, at which stage of its procedure suai payment was monetized is important. It would indicate whether the local authorities were able to exercise any controlling power over local market conditions, and the nature of the impact of the development of trade on the existing political and economic structure.

³⁴ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1192 no. 14, in Čhotmaihet ratchakan thi sam, vol. 5, pp. 47–52.

³⁵ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1193 no. 21.

³⁶ The process of changes in types of silver coins used for the suai ngoen payments in the 1840s and the 1850s represents a rather zigzag course. The payment in Thai baht, which once reached almost a hundred per cent of payments in 1848, was decreased to less than a half in 1849, 1851, 1855, and 1856; while the payments made in other local coins, which had once diminished to almost zero in 1848, then, recovered to more than 60 per cent in the following year, and maintained an over 40 per cent rate in 1851, 1853, 1855, as well as 1856 (see the sources of Table 5). On the other hand, in contrast with suai ngoen whose bai b k records (dispatches) before 1845, though very fragmentary and scattered in nature, often mentioned the types of local coins used for payments, the payments of suai phon-reo before the mid-1840s in bai b k designated the payments in money simply as ngoen or ngoen tra. The frequent appearance of local coins in both bai b k and banchi records for suai phon-reo later in the beginning of the 1850s, seems as if payment in local coins increased in that period. However, data to express these developments in a more quantitative form is not available.

³⁷ One of the problems is the fragmentary nature of the available records; another is the vague record-keeping practices. The available data before the middle of the 1840s on the kind of silver coins paid as suai ngoen are of a highly fragmentary kind scattered in numerous bai b k (dispatches) records without having pieced together as banchi (account books). There also remains a slight suspicion that the sudden disappearance of local coins after 1857 resulted partly from the omission of detailed information on the kinds of coin from available banchi records in the 1860s. The record of payment of Sithandon made in 1862, for example, which did include ngoen tra lao and kha sun phloeng (a melting fee) in one record, was only written down in the banchi for the year as 6,277 Thai baht. NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1225 no. 236, NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1224 no. 252. The interpretation of the disappearance of local coins as a means for suai payment is even more difficult than tracing process of its change. A greater knowledge of the sourcs and supplies of raw material, of the minting places for factoring these local coins, as well as of the fineness and exchange rates among different types of coins, and a better knowledge of the circulation of these coins in the local economy outside of the suai payments would be necessary before the significance of this change can be adequately discussed.

³⁸ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1209 no. 109.

³⁹ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1207 no. 264. It should also be reminded that Hunter faced reintroduction of the monopoly of sugar in the mid-1840s. The Burney Papers (Farnborough: Gregg International Publishers, reprint, 1971), vol. 4, pt. 2, pp. 131–32Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Bodindecha was involved in this quasi-commercial activity at least between 1837 and 1848. NL.CMH. R.III, C.S.1199 no. 9, no. 24; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1200 no. 8, no. 70; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1201 no. 44; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1203 no. 51; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1204 no. 82; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1205 no. 56, no. 93; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1210 no. 102. Cardamom (krawan) from the Khmer regions was purchased at prices of 100 to 120 baht per 60 kilograms (hap) and sold in Bangkok as high as at 220 baht per hap. NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1199 no. 24; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1202 no. 167; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1206 no. 49; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1208 no. 60. Silk was purchased at 200 baht per hap. NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1201 no. 44. On the other hand, since Bodindecha also had the authority to deal with the internal affairs of these northeastern muang, it is possible to imagine that these muang tried to win Bodindecha's favour by complying with his demand for commodities.

⁴¹ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1201 no. 26.

⁴² NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1201 no. 40, no. 43, and no. 70.

⁴³ NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1216 no. 213.

⁴⁴ NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1216 no. 213. It is also explained in the same document that local officials in these muang had already had to collect money from able-bodied men (tua lek) and buy bastard cardamom from other muang because the production at home was insufficient.

⁴⁵ NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1219 no. 192. But this order seems to have applied just to Yasothon and its satellite muang. In the document addressed to Sangkha, issued about two months earlier, Bangkok explained that bastard cardamom was a commodity for foreign merchants, and demanded its payment without delay. NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1219 no. 192. Therefore, we cannot help saying that the attitude of Bangkok on suai payments towards different muang were not really uniform.

⁴⁶ See NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1221 no. 213; and NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1222 no. 308.

⁴⁷ See Crawfurd, J., Journal of an Embassy to the Courts of Siam and Cochin China (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, reprint, 1967), p. 413Google Scholar; The Burney Papers, vol. 2, pt. 4, pp. 103–107; Roberts, E., Embassy to the Eastern Courts of Cochin-China, Siam and Muscat during the years 1832, 1833, 1834 (Washington: Scholarly Resource Inc., reprint, 1972), pp. 316–18Google Scholar; Pallegoix, J.B., Description du Royaume Thai ou Siam (Farnborough: Gregg International, reprint, 1969), vol. 1, pp. 327–28Google Scholar; and Malloch, D.E., Siam: Some General Remarks on its Productions and in Particular on its Imports and Exports (Calcutta: The Baptist Mission Press, 1852)Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ NA.R.V, documents of the Krom Mahatthai (M) 2.12.ko (Nakhon Champasak)/3. However, whether or not the removal of this export ban was well observed in practice is in doubt. The same document records that Bangkok, at that time, was condemned by the French authorities for prohibiting the Lao to trade freely with merchants coming from Cambodia (khamen).

⁴⁹ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1193 no. 17; and NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1198 no. 34.

⁵⁰ NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1221 no. 149.

⁵¹ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1193 no. 17.

⁵² Aymonier, E., Voyage dans le Laos (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895), tome 1, pp. 17–23, 37–39Google Scholar.

⁵³ Crawfurd, J., Journal of an Embassy, p. 379Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Mayoury, and Ngaosyvathn, Pheuiphanh, “Lao Historiography and Historians: Case Study of the War Between Bangkok and the Lao in 1827”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 20, no. 1 (03 1989): 55, 62–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1212 no. 33 k ; NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1214 no. 155; NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1216 no. 148; NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1222 no. 335; and NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1228 no. 102.

⁵⁶ Luang Phadung khwaen prachan, “Ruang ngoen khng ratsadn phak isan” [On the money of the Isan people], in Latthi thamniam tang tang [Various customs and traditions], phak thi 1, (Bangkok: Khurusapha, 1961)Google Scholar. For the local coins, see also NA., documents in the Private Collections (SB.) 2.56/44: Tamnan ngoen tra muang thai.

⁵⁷ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1207 no. 256.

⁵⁸ See, for example, NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1206 no. 15 and NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1207 no. 299.

⁵⁹ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1195 no. 36.

⁶⁰ See, for example, NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1214 no. 69, no. 71; NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1220 no. 46, no. 49; NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1222 no. 128; NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1225 no. 172; and NL.CMH.R.IV, C.S.1230 no. 233.

⁶¹ Mouhot, H., Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China (Siam), Cambodia, and Laos, during the Years 1858, 1859, and 1860 (Bangkok: White Lotus, reprint, 1986), vol. 2, pp. 114–15Google Scholar.

⁶² See, for example, NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1193 no. 34; NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1202 no. 162; and NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1203 no. 32.

⁶³ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1205 no. 66, no. 67.

⁶⁴ NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1207 no. 281. It turned out, however, that Bangkok applied the usual conversion rate, i.e. 20 baht per 60 kilograms (hap), to the payment that arrived later. NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1207 no. 293.

⁶⁵ The author admits that it is difficult to explain the reason why the conversion rates for gold and bastard cardamom into silver money were set lower than those of silver money into gold and bastard cardamom in the third reign. If Bangkok were in want of commodities rather than money, they should have raised the conversion rates of these two commodities, especially bastard cardamom, into silver, so that it would be an incentive for payment in kind. One possible interpretation of this situation is that Bangkok, being so sure of the enforcing payment in kind due to the closure of trade routes along the Mekong enforced by Bodindecha, tried to increase the amount to be paid in kind under a fixed amount of suai imposition in money by offering cheaper rates for these products paid in substitution of money.

⁶⁶ In fact, there are some records to imply that payment in money occurred as a result of insufficient production of bastard cardamom. For the case of Phutthaisong, see NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1206 no. 105; and for Khemarat, see NL.CMH.R.III, C.S.1210 no. 81.

⁶⁷ The same would hold true with the argument that reduction in the weights of commodities from dehydration during long-distance transportation from the northeast to Bangkok motivated the commutation under local initiative.