MODERN SIAM
The present king of Siam is the fourth in succession from that
distinguished general who was at first the friend and companion, and at
last something like the murderer of the renowned Phya Tak, the founder
of the new capital, and indeed of the new kingdom of Siam. For, with the
fall of Ayuthia and the removal of the seat of government to Bangkok,
the country entered on a new era of prosperity and progress. Bangkok is
not far from sixty miles nearer to the mouth of the river than Ayuthia,
and the geographical change was significant of an advance toward the
other nations of the world and of more intimate relations of commerce
and friendship with them. The founder of this dynasty reigned
prosperously for twenty-seven years, and under his sway the country
enjoyed the repose and peace which after a period of prolonged and
devastating war it so greatly needed. After him his son continued the
pacific administration of the government for fourteen years, until 1824.
At the death of this king (the second of the new dynasty), who left as
heirs to the throne two sons of the same mother, the succession was
usurped by an illegitimate son, who contrived by cunning management and
by a readiness to avail himself of force, if it was needed, to possess
himself of the sovereignty, and to be confirmed in it by the nobles and
council of state. The two legitimate sons of the dead king, the oldest
of whom had been expressly named to succeed his father, were placed by
this usurpation in a position of extreme peril; and the elder of the two
retired at once into a Buddhist monastery as a _talapoin_, where he was
safe from molestation and could wait his time to claim his birthright.
The younger son, as having less to fear, took public office under the
usurper and acquainted himself with the cares and responsibilities of
government.
After a reign of twenty-seven years, closing in the year 1851, the
usurper died. His reign was marked by some events of extraordinary
interest. His royal palace was destroyed by fire, but afterward rebuilt
upon a larger scale and in a better style. And various military
expeditions against adjoining countries were undertaken with results of
more or less importance. The most interesting of these expeditions was
that against the Laos country, a brief account of which by an
intelligent and able writer is quoted in Bowring's book. As a picture of
the style of warfare and the barbarous cruelties of a successful
campaign, it is striking and instructive. It is as follows:
"The expedition against Laos was successful. As usual in Siamese
warfare, they laid waste the country, plundered the inhabitants, brought
them to Bangkok, sold them and gave them away as slaves. The prince Vun
Chow and family made their escape into Cochin China; but instead of
meeting with a friendly reception they were seized by the king of that
country and delivered as prisoners to the Siamese. The king (of Laos)
arrived in Bangkok about the latter end of 1828, and underwent there the
greatest cruelties barbarians could invent. He was confined in a large
iron cage, exposed to a burning sun, and obliged to proclaim to every
one that the king of Siam was great and merciful, that he himself had
committed a great error, and deserved his present punishment. In this
cage were placed with the prisoner a large mortar to pound him in, a
large boiler to boil him in, a hook to hang him by and a sword to
decapitate him; also a sharp pointed spike for him to sit on. His
children were sometimes put in along with him. He was a mild,
respectable-looking, old, gray-headed man, and did not live long to
gratify his tormentors, death having put an end to his sufferings. His
body was taken and hung in chains on the bank of the river, about two or
three miles below Bangkok. The conditions on which the Cochin Chinese
gave up Chow Vun Chow were, that the king of Siam would appoint a new
prince to govern the Laos country, who should be approved of by the
Cochin Chinese, and that the court of Siam should deliver up the persons
belonging to the Siamese army who attacked and killed some Cochin
Chinese during the Laos war."
It is safe to say that the kingdom has by this time made such progress
in civilization that a picture of barbarism and cruelty like that which
is given in the above narrative could not possibly be repeated in Siam
to-day.
The reign of this king was noteworthy for the treaty of commerce between
Great Britain and Siam, negotiated by Captain Burney, as also for other
negotiations tending to similar and larger intercourse with other
countries, especially with the United States. But the concessions
granted were ungenerous, and a spirit of jealousy and dislike continued
to govern the conduct of Siam toward other nations.
Notwithstanding the slow growth of that enlightened confidence which is
the only sure guaranty of commercial prosperity, Siam was brought into
connection with the outside world through the labors of the
missionaries, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, who, during the reign
of this king, established themselves in the country. Some more detailed
reference to the labors and successes of the missionaries will be made
in a subsequent chapter. It is by means of these self-sacrificing and
devoted men that the great advances which Siam has made have been
chiefly brought about. The silent influence which they were exerting
during this period, from 1824 to 1851, was really the great fact of the
reign of the king Phra Chao Pravat Thong. Once or twice the king became
suspicious of them, and attempted to hinder or to put an end to their
labors. In 1848 he went so far as to issue an edict against the Roman
Catholic missionaries, commanding the destruction of all their places of
worship; but the edict was only partially carried into execution. The
change which has taken place in the attitude of the government in regard
to religious liberty, and the sentiments of the present king in regard
to it, are best expressed by a royal proclamation issued during the year
1870, a quotation from which is given in the Bangkok Calendar for the
next year ensuing, introduced by a brief note from the editor, the Rev.
D. B. Bradley.
"The following translation is an extract from the Royal Siamese Calendar
for the current year. It is issued by the authority of his majesty, the
supreme king, and is to me quite interesting in many respects, but
especially in the freedom it accords to all Siamese subjects in the
great concerns of their religion. Having near the close of the pamphlet
given good moral lessons, the paper concludes with the following noble
sentiments, and very remarkable for a heathen king to promulgate:
"In regard to the concern of seeking and holding a religion that shall
be a refuge to yourself in this life, it is a good concern and
exceedingly appropriate and suitable that you all--every individual of
you--should investigate and judge for himself according to his own
wisdom. And when you see any religion whatever, or any company of
religionists whatever, likely to be of advantage to yourself, a refuge
in accord with your own wisdom, hold to that religion with all your
heart. Hold it not with a shallow mind, with mere guess-work, or because
of its general popularity, or from mere traditional saying that it is
the _custom_ held from time immemorial; and do not hold a religion that
you have not good evidence is true, and then frighten men's fears, and
flatter their hopes by it. Do not be frightened and astonished at
diverse events (fictitious wonders) and hold to and follow them. When
you shall have obtained a refuge, a religious faith that is beautiful
and good and suitable, hold to it with great joy, and follow its
teachings, and it will be a cause of prosperity to each one of you."
The contrast between the state of things represented by this document
and that exemplified by the story of the treatment of the captive king
of Laos is sufficiently striking. The man who tortured the king of Laos
was the uncle of the young man who is now on the throne. But between the
two--covering the period from the year 1851 to the year 1868--was a king
whose character and history entitle him to be ranked among the most
extraordinary and admirable rulers of modern times. To this man and his
younger brother, who reigned conjointly as first and second kings, is
due the honor of giving to their realm an honorable place among the
nations of the world and putting it in the van of progress among the
kingdoms of the far East.
It seemed at first a misfortune that these two brothers should have been
so long kept out of their rightful dignities by their comparatively
coarse and cruel half-brother, who usurped the throne. But it proved in
the end, both for them and for the world, a great advantage. The
usurper, when he seized the throne, promised to hold it for a few years
only and to restore it to its rightful heirs as soon as their growth in
years and in experience should fit them to govern. So far was he,
however, from making good his words that he had made all his
arrangements to put his own son in his place. Having held the
sovereignty for twenty-seven years the desire to perpetuate it in his
own line was natural. And as he had about seven hundred wives there was
no lack of children from among whom he might choose his heir. In 1851
he was taken sick, and it was evident that his end was at hand. At this
crisis, says Sir John Bowring:
"The energy of the Praklang (the present Kalahom) saved the nation from
the miseries of disputed succession. The Praklang's eldest son, Phya
Sisuriwong, held the fortresses of Paknam, and, with the aid of his
powerful family, placed Chau Fa Tai upon the throne, and was made
Kalahom, being at once advanced ten steps and to the position the most
influential in the kingdom, that of prime-minister. On March 18, 1851,
the Praklang proposed to the council of nobles the nomination of Chau Fa
Tai; he held bold language, carried his point, and the next day
communicated the proceedings to the elected sovereign in his _wat_ (or
temple), everybody, even rival candidates, having given in their
adhesion. By general consent, Chau Fa Noi was raised to the rank of
wangna, or second king, having, it is said, one third of the revenues
with a separate palace and establishment."
It is difficult to determine how the custom of two kings reigning at
once could have originated, and how far back in the history of Siam it
is to be traced. It is possible that it originated with the present
dynasty, for the founder of this dynasty had a brother with whom he was
closely intimate, who shared his fortunes when they were generals
together under Phya Tak, and who might naturally enough have become his
colleague when he ascended the throne. Under the reign of the uncle of
the present king the office of the second king was abolished. It was
restored again at the next succession, but was finally abolished upon
the death of King George in 1885.