1924th Introduction

Introductory Notes for the Draft April 1924

← Previous Page | Next Page →

Historical Background

A. Before the Promulgation of the Book I and II on 11th Nov. 1923

The initial concept of the Draft developed by the French commissioners covered the general principles of civil law, the general rules of obligations, and the part of specific contracts all together in a single volume.

By September 1920, however, the Commission of Codification decided to separate the part for the general principles from other parts as a "Book I on General Principles" (see the Thai translation of the Draft in the archive Vol.71).

By September 1921, furthermore, the Commission decided to separate the Book in Obligations between the general part as a "Book II" and the specific part for contracts as a "Book III" (see the Thai translation of the Draft in the archive Vol.73).

In the memorandum of 19th December 1921 submitted by Mr. René Guyon, he proposed the Books I and II to be promulgated soon, separately from the still unfinished Book III. Apparently, his proposal was approved, but shortly before the actual promulgation of the Books I and II, the Commission decided integrate the parts for "Capacity of Persons" and "Juristic Persons" into the Book I on General Principles (see the "Record of the Meeting of the Commission of Codification on 16th October 1922").

B. Intervention of the British Government

In March 1923, Dr. James, the British adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, suddenly submitted to the Commission of Codification a long list of requests to correct and improve the English text of the Draft for Specific Contracts even though its revising work was still in progress and the Draft was not published yet.

It must have been a complete surprise for the Commission and the Siamese Government. Phraya Manava Rachasevi described it in his interview on 10th October 1990 as follows:

[...] เมื่อตกลงกันได้ กรรมการ ๔ คน ก็แปล เขียนทั่งภาษาอังกฤษและภาษาไทย เมื่อเสร็จบรรพ ๑, ๒, ๓ แล้ว ยังไม่ทันจะออกมาเลย สถานทูตอังกฤษทักทัวงเสียใหญ่โต ตอนนั้นฉันแม้เป็นนักเรียนอังกฤษก็ฉุนเหมือนกัน มันทักทัวงใหญ่โต จะ delay เรานี่น่ะ ว่ามาตรานั้นไม่ถูก มาตรานี้ไม่ถูก ทังๆ ที่ยังไม่ออกมาเลย มันก็รู้ มันจะรู้ได้ยังไง มันขโมยเอาไปน่ะซี เลยต้องเถียงกัน ฉันก็ว่า ไอมาตรานี้น่ะไม่สติปัญญาของฉันหรอก ฉันลอกเขามา [...] ฉันก็เลยว่าถ้าแม้นมาตรานี้ใช้ไม่ได้แล้ว กฎหมายของชาตินั้น เยอรมัน ญี่ปุ่น ก็คงใช้ไม่ได้ด้วย [...]

"บันทึกคำสัมภาษณ์ พระยามานวราชเสวี" (น.๗๗ - ๗๘)

He assumed that somebody has delivered the internal documents of the drafting works to the British Embassy. It was a "information leakage". Among many issues pointed out by Dr. James, the most serious criticism was his objection against the limitation of the period of lease in Sec. 491 (Sec. 556 in the Draft April 1924, the current Sec. 540). Dr. James argued that unlimited lease over land should be allowed as a compensation for the prohibition of ownership over land for foreigners. Otherwise, such a prohibition of ownership for foreigners should be repealed according to Dr. James' argument. On the criticism, Phraya Manava Rachasevi defended the section on the ground that it was not any own creation, but a simple copy from the foreign model laws; namely German Sec. 567 and Japanese Art. 604. After a long consideration, the Commission of Codification concluded agreements with Dr. James in the period from August to October 1923 totally in 5 installments, which were reported as the "Collaboration of Dr. James" in the archive Vol.41.