As we have noted, the Burmese sacke

As we have noted, the Burmese sacked Ayudhya destroying almost all legal materials in 1767. King Phra Phuttahyotfa (Rama I, 1782-1809), the founder of the present (Chakri) dynasty, decided to compile all the traditional law and remove from it aberrations such as unfair or inappropriate king-made law (rachasat). This task was completed in 1805 and the resulting code is commonly known as the Law of the Three Seals.(19) This code, because it is virtually the only extant evidence of classical Thai law,(20) represents the ancient traditional law of Thailand.(21) There is no translation into any language except modern Thai.

Because there is almost no primary source material except this 1805 recension, it is difficult to give a chronological picture of the gradual accretion of farmers' rights in land. We offer our interpretation based upon what we find in the Law of the Three Seals. See the appendix of this paper for our translations of the provisions of the Law of the Three Seals cited below.

The ancient Thai tradition of royal ownership of all land had been relaxed and was perhaps on its way to extinction during the Sukhothai period because the Thais were holding more land and suffered chronic shortages of manpower. The adoption of the Hindu theory of kingship during the early Ayudhya period prevented any change in the actual law because the notion of royal ownership of all land comported so well with the idea of the king as god. It was seen as a logical corollary of divinity that the king should own the source of all sustenance. Thus ironically the adoption of a "substantively rational" system of law based on thammasat (natural law) by the Thai kings perhaps forestalled legal recognition of farmers' ownership rights in land.

But the economic forces present in Sukhothai were also at work in Ayuthya. The area controlled by Thai kings grew, and manpower was always in short supply. The tension created by Thai kings' need to attract more people to farm the land they controlled while maintaining the theoretical ownership of all land is readily apparent in the Law of the Three Seals. While section 52(22) of the miscellaneous book declared that all land belonged to the king and section 54(23) prohibited the buying and selling of land, section 54 also required officials to encourage people to farm the land and granted a one-year tax holiday for newly cleared lands.

Given the policy of encouraging the people to clear and settle more land implicit in section 54, it seems inevitable that the prohibition of the sale of land would lose its potency. Thus section 61(24) limits to ten years the seller's right of redemption in a sale of land with the right of redemption (khaifak)(25) and section 62(26) prohibits the sale of land by an unlawful occupier. We may infer from these sections that borrowing against and selling land were common practices during the Ayudhya period. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why section 54's prohibition on the sale of land was retained through the years and in the 1805 recension if not in order to keep the law in harmony with the prevailing theory of kingship; many sections of the miscellaneous laws book(27) seem to assume regular buying and selling of land.

Further indications of farmers' gradually increasing rights in the land include punishments stipulated in the Law of the Three Seals for occupation of another 's land (miscellaneous laws book §§ 34-41)(28) and for clearing and farming wild land without first notifying the proper authority (crimes against government book § 47).(29) It seems likely that the purpose of the latter provision was to facilitate collection of land taxes.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

As we have noted, the Burmese sacked Ayudhya destroying almost all legal materials in 1767. King Phra Phuttahyotfa (Rama I, 1782-1809), the founder of the present (Chakri) dynasty, decided to compile all the traditional law and remove from it. aberrations such as unfair or inappropriate king-made law (rachasat). This task was completed in 1805 and the resulting code is commonly known as the Law of the Three Seals. (19) This code, because it is virtually the only extant evidence of classical Thai law, (20) represents the ancient traditional law of Thailand. . (21) There is no translation Into any language except Modern Thai. Because there is no primary Almost Source Material 1,805th Recension except this, it is difficult to give a gradual accretion of Chronological Picture of the Farmers' rights in Land. We offer our interpretation based upon what we find in the Law of the Three Seals. See the Appendix of this Paper for our translations of the Provisions of the Law of the Three Seals cited Below. The Ancient Thai tradition of Royal Ownership of all Land had been relaxed and was perhaps on its Way to extinction during the Sukhothai period because the Thais. were holding more land and suffered chronic shortages of manpower. The adoption of the Hindu theory of kingship during the early Ayudhya period prevented any change in the actual law because the notion of royal ownership of all land comported so well with the idea of the king as god. It was seen as a logical corollary of divinity that the king should own the source of all sustenance. Thus ironically the Adoption of a "substantively Rational" System based on Law of Thammasat (Natural Law) by the Thai Kings perhaps Forestalled Legal Recognition of Farmers' Land Ownership rights in. But the Economic Forces in Sukhothai were also present at Work in Photos of the area. The area controlled by Thai kings grew, and manpower was always in short supply. The tension created by Thai kings' need to attract more people to farm the land they controlled while maintaining the theoretical ownership of all land is readily apparent in the Law of the Three Seals. While section 52 (22) of the miscellaneous book declared that all land belonged to the king and section 54 (23) prohibited the buying and selling of land, section 54 also required officials to encourage people to farm the land and granted a one-year. Tax Holiday for Newly cleared Lands. Given the Policy of encouraging the people to Clear Land and settle more implicit in section 54, it seems inevitable that the prohibition of the sale of Land would Lose its potency. Thus section 61 (24) limits to ten years the seller's right of redemption in a sale of land with the right of redemption (khaifak) (25) and section 62 (26) prohibits the sale of land by an unlawful occupier. We may infer from these sections that borrowing against and selling land were common practices during the Ayudhya period. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why section 54's prohibition on the sale of land was retained through the years and in the 1805 recension if not in order to keep the law in harmony with the prevailing theory of kingship; many Sections of the Miscellaneous Laws Book (27) seem to assume regular Buying and selling of Land. Further indications of Farmers 'gradually increasing rights in the Land include punishments stipulated in the Law of the Three Seals for occupation of another' s Land (Miscellaneous. laws book §§ 34-41) (28) and for clearing and farming wild land without first notifying the proper authority (crimes against government book § 47). (29) It seems likely that the purpose of the latter provision was to facilitate collection. of land taxes.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

As we have noted the Burmese, sacked Ayudhya destroying almost all legal materials in 1767. King Phra Phuttahyotfa (Rama. I, the 1782-1809), the founder of the present (Chakri), Dynasty decided to compile all the traditional law and remove from it. Aberrations such as unfair or inappropriate king-made law (rachasat).This task was completed in 1805 and the resulting code is commonly known as the Law of the Three Seals. (19), This code. Because it is virtually the only extant evidence of classical Thai law, (20) represents the ancient traditional law of Thailand. (21). There is no translation into any language except modern Thai.

Because there is almost no primary source material except. This, 1805 RecensionIt is difficult to give a chronological picture of the gradual accretion of farmers' rights in land. We offer our interpretation. Based upon what we find in the Law of the Three Seals. See the appendix of this paper for our translations of the provisions. Of the Law of the Three Seals cited below.

.The ancient Thai tradition of Royal ownership of all land had been relaxed and was perhaps on its way to extinction during. The Sukhothai period because the Thais were holding more land and suffered chronic shortages of manpower.The adoption of the Hindu theory of kingship during the early Ayudhya period prevented any change in the actual law because. The notion of Royal ownership of all land comported so well with the idea of the king as God. It was seen as a logical corollary. Of divinity that the king should own the source of all sustenance.Thus ironically the adoption of a "substantively rational" system of law based on Thammasat (Natural Law) by the Thai kings. Perhaps forestalled legal recognition of farmers' ownership rights in land.

But the economic forces present in Sukhothai. Were also at work in Ayuthya. The area controlled by Thai, kings grew and manpower was always in short supply.The tension created by Thai kings' need to attract more people to farm the land they controlled while maintaining the theoretical. Ownership of all land is readily apparent in the Law of the Three Seals. While section 52 (22) of the miscellaneous book. Declared that all land belonged to the king and section 54 (23) prohibited the buying and selling, of land