^{page 16 note 1} Vella, Walter F.The Impact of the West on Government in Thailand (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1955)Google Scholar; Hall, D. G. E.A History of South-East Asia, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Cady, John F.Southeast Asia: Its Historical Development (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964)Google Scholar; and Wyatt, David K.The Politics of Reform in Thailand: Education in the Reign of King Chulalongkon (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

^{page 16 note 2} Two of the best known studies of the modernization of central government structures are Riggs, Fred W.Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (Honolulu: East-West Center Press 1966)Google Scholar and Siffin, William J.The Thai Bureaucracy: Institutional Change and Development (Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1966)Google Scholar. Two very good studies of centreperiphery relations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are Tej Bunnag, The Provincial Administration of Siam from 1892 to 1915: A Study of the Creation, the Growth, the Achievements, and the Implications for Modern Siam, of the Ministry of the Interior Under Prince Damrong Rachanuphap (Ph. D. Dissertation, Oxford University, 1968)Google Scholar and Vickery, Michael“Thai Regional Elites and the Reforms of King Chulalongkorn.” The Journal of Asian Studies, 29 (August, 1970), pp. 863–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The history of northern Thailand for the period under examination is covered in Brailey, Nigel J.The Origins of the Siamese Forward Movement in Western Laos, 1850–1892 (Ph. D. Dissertation, University of London, 1968)Google Scholar and Ansil Ramsay, JamesThe Development of a Bureaucratic Polity: The Case of Northern Siam (Ph. D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} These devices were created by Lindberg and Scheingold to study the development of supranational institutions in Europe. I have modified the first device to suit Thai conditions. For their usage of the devices see Lindberg, Leon N. and Scheingold, Stuart A.Europe's Would-Be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), pp. 65–70.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 4} As noted in the previous footnote I have modified this measurement device. The three major areas are the three levels of functioning for any political system suggested by Gabriel Almond: system maintenance and adaptation functions, conversion processes, and capabilities. Almond, Gabriel A. and Bingham Powell, G.Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1966)Google Scholar. I have used the terms recruitment, decisionmaking, and capabilities as rough synonyms for Almond's three categories for the benefit of those who are not familiar with Almond's terminology. I have retained his terms of “rule making", “rule application” and “rule adjudication” even though they may seem to be an excessive use of jargon. The more usual Western terms which might be substituted do not fit the Thai case very well. One such breakdown is executive, legislative, and judicial, yet these can be confusing when used for the northern tributary states. There was no “legislature” as the term is usually used, and as is pointed out in the text judicial functions were handled both by courts and the khao sanam luang.

^{page 18 note 5} Lindberg and Scheingold, p. 69.

^{page 18 note 6} Huntington, Samuel P.Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 143–144.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 7} These stages in centre-periphery relations are suggested in Daniel Lerner, “Some Comments on Center-Periphery Relations,” in Merrit, Richard L. and Rokkan, Stein (eds.), Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 259–265.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 8} The best account of the early history of these states is in Phraya Prachakit Korachak (Chaem Bunnak), Phongsawadan Yonok [Chronicles of Yonok] (Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, 1961)Google Scholar. This chronicle carries the history of the states up to 1875, but concentrates mainly on a much earlier period. The standard account of the history of Chiang Mai, Lampang, and Lamphun from 1774 to 1874 is given in Phraya Maha-amattayathibodi (Run Siphen), Phongsawadan Muang Nakon Chiang Mai, Muang Nakhon Lampang, Muang Lamphunchai [Chronicles of Chiang Mai, Lampang, and Lamphun] (Bangkok, 1963)Google Scholar. For the history of Nan see Saenluang Ratchasomphan, Ruang ratchawang pakon, phongsawadan Muang Nan [Chronicles of Nan] (Bangkok, 1964)Google Scholar. For a brief English account of the history of these states see LeMay, ReginaldAn Asian Arcady: The Land and Peoples of Northern Siam (Cambridge, W. Heffer and Sons, 1926)Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 9} Phraya Maha-amattayathibodi, pp. 94–95.

^{page 20 note 10} Great Britain, Foreign Office Records, Series 628, Number 157, Hildebrand, “Report on Special Mission to Chiengmai,” 18 May 1895.

^{page 21 note 11} Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 58, Number 88, Rai-ngan Krom Mun Phichit Prichakon ruang chat ratchakan Chiang Mai Lamphun lae Lampang [Report of Krom Mun Phichit Prichakon on Putting the Governments of Chiang Mai, Lamphun, and Lampang in Order]. The translation is from Bunnag, p. 31.

^{page 21 note 12} Quoted in Brailey, p. 35.

^{page 21 note 13} For more detailed accounts of government in the states, see Brailey, pp. 31–36 and Ramsay, pp. 27–52. Thai accounts are helpful for explaining recruitment and providing genealogies. Two of the most useful for these purposes are Phraya Maha-amattayathibodi, Phongsawadan Muang Nakhon Chiang Mai, Muang Nakhan Lampang, Muang Lamphunchai and Prani Sirithon na Phatthalung, Phet Lanna: sankhadi chiwprawat bukhon yuk thong khong lannathai [Luminaries of Lanna: Biographies of Persons from the Golden Age of Lanna Thai]. 2 vols. (Chiang Mai, Thailand: Suriwong Printing, 1964)Google Scholar. There are no good accounts of the actual decision-making processes of the northern governments.

^{page 21 note 14} Brailey, p. 49.

^{page 21 note 15} Ibid., p. 53.

^{page 22 note 16} Prani Sirithon na Phatthalung, Phet Lanna, p. 7. On travel difficulties see also McGilvary, DanielA Half Century Among the Siamese and the Lao (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912), pp. 60–63.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 17} Brailey, p. 68.

^{page 22 note 18} Riordan, William L.Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948), p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 19} The best account of the chaotic state of the timber industry in this period can be found in the report made by Herbert Slade in 1896 to the Thai government on forestry conditions in the North. Slade was appointed director of the newly created Forestry Department shortly after making this report. Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 16, Number 9, Rai-ngan khong Mr. H. Slade [Report of Mr. H. Slade], 1896. This document, as well as all the other Thai government documents relied upon in the paper are housed in the National Archives of Thailand in Bangkok. The identification system is that used by the archives.

^{page 23 note 20} Rachanuphap, DamrongThesaphiban [Provincial Administration] (Bangkok, 1952), pp. 65–76.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 21} Britain, GreatAccounts and Papers, East India, Vol. 49, 1874, “Treaty with the King of Siam,” pp. 30–34.Google Scholar The events leading to the signing of this treaty and its significance are covered in detail in Brailey, pp. 166–195.

^{page 23 note 22} Britain, Great Foreign Office Records, Series 69, Number 147, Reprint of Ernest Satow, “The Laos States, Upper Siam,” Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol. XL (22 January 1892); p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 23} Great Britain, Foreign Office Records, Series 69, Number 256, “Treaty Between Her Majesty and His Majesty The King of Siam for the Prevention of Crime in the Territories of Chiangmai, Lakon, and Lampoonchai, and for the Promotion of Commerce between British Burmah and the Territories aforesaid”.

^{page 24 note 24} Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 99, Number 3, Luang Anurakphukhet krapthun Somdet Phrachao Boromawongthoe Chao Fa Mahamala Krom Phra Bamrappraput wa ruang Krom Mun Phichit pai chat ratchakan Muang Chiang Mai, Lamphun, Lampang [Luang Anurakphukhet reports to Somdet Phrachao Boromawongthoe Chao Fa Mahamala Krom Phra Bamrappraput on Krom Mun Phichit's organization of government in Chiang Mai, Lamphun, Lampang], no date. See also Bunnag, The Provincial Administration of Siam, p. 106.

^{page 24 note 25} Bunnag, The Provincial Administration of Siam, p. 106.

^{page 24 note 26} Siffln, p. 52.

^{page 24 note 27} Gerth, H. H. and Wright Mills, C.From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), pp. 208–209.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 28} Thailand, National Archives, Nangsu Chut (Phiset), Vol. 25, 1883–1884, pp. 26–27Google Scholar, Krom Mun Phichit to King Chulalongkon, No. 2618, 10 December 1883. These reforms are also discussed in Great Britain, Foreign Office Records, Series 628, Number 142, E. G. Gould to Counsul General, Bangkok, No. 25, 6 December 1884.

^{page 25 note 29} Great Britain, Public Record Office, 30/33/2/5, Gould to Satow, 4 April 1885. The limited effect of these reforms are also discussed in Brailey, p. 272 and Bunnag, p. 115.

^{page 25 note 30} The rise of the large European firms is discussed in Ramsay, pp. 123–132.

^{page 25 note 31} Rai-ngan khong Mr. H. Slade, no page number.

^{page 26 note 32} Slade's comment is in Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 16–3, No. 5, 18 December 1896.

^{page 26 note 33} An English translation of this letter can be found in Great Britain, Foreign Office Records, Series 628, No. 247, Beckett to Greville, 28 August 1897. A Thai copy of the original is in Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 16–3, No. 5, King Chulalongkon to Prachao Nakhon Chiang Mai, 9 April 1897.

^{page 26 note 34} Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 58, No. 187, Phraya Song Suradet to Prince Damrong, 719/6768, 6 February 1896, and Prince Damrong to Krom Mun Sommot, 1767/44974, 20 March 1896.

^{page 26 note 35} Ramsay, pp. 154–174.

^{page 26 note 36} There are accounts of this crisis in Bunnag, pp. 248–259, and Ramsay, pp. 174–177 The chao's letter to the King can be found in Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 58, No. 41, Chao Upparat Chiang Mai, et. al. to King Chulalongkon, 1/35, 27 July 1899.

^{page 27 note 37} For a detailed account of these reforms see Ramsay, pp. 178–195. Phraya Si Sahathep's reports back to the Interior Minister, Prince Damrong, provide an excellent running account of how the reforms were effected. These reports are located in Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 58, No. 33.

^{page 27 note 38} Ramsay, pp. 190–191. The complete structure is described in Kho bangkhap samrap pokkhrong monthon tawantok chiang nua, r.s. 119 [Law for Governing the Northwest Division, 1900], Ratchakitchanubeksa [Government Gazette], Vol. 17 (July, 1900), pp. 177–194.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 39} Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 58, No. 33, Prince Damrong to Krom Mun Sommot, 584/8225, 26 March 1900.

^{page 28 note 40} Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 58, No. 33, Phraya Si Sahathep to Prince Damrong, 2 April 1900.

^{page 28 note 41} Ibid.

^{page 29 note 42} Great Britain, Foreign Office Records, Series 628, No. 267, Lyle to Black, 1 May 1900.

^{page 29 note 43} Evidence of continued widespread use of corvee labour can be found in British consular reports from the North. See for example Great Britain, Accounts and Papers, Commercial Reports, Vol. LXXVIII, 1903, “Report for the Year 1901 on the Trade and Commerce of the Consular District of Chiengmai, No. 2929,” p. 8. The incident at Mae Ngat is reported in Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 58, No. 21, Report to King Chulalongkon, 1 July 1902. The incident was also reported in the Bangkok Times, 14 August 1902, p. 14.

^{page 29 note 44} These difficulties are described mainly in British sources. Among them are Great Britain, Accounts and Papers, Commercial Reports, Vol. CX, 1902, “Report for the Year 1900 on the Trade of the Consular District of Chiengmai, No. 2717,” pp. 4–5, and Great Britain, Accounts and Papers, Commercial Reports, Vol. LXXVIII, 1903, “Report for the Year 1901 on the Trade and Commerce of the Consular District of Chiengmai, No. 2929,” p. 7. In Thailand see Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 63, No. 3, F. S. Thomas to Chao Phraya Surasak Montri, 27 August 1902.

^{page 30 note 45} The best descriptive account of the rebellion is Tej Bunnag, “Khabot Ngiao Muang Phrae” [The Shan Rebellion in Phrae], Sangkhomsat Parithat [The Social Science Review] (6 September, 1968), pp. 67–80.Google Scholar Bunnag's contention that the senior chao played a major role in inspiring the rebellion is contested by Ramsay, pp. 228–234.

^{page 30 note 46} Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 49, No. 93, King Chulalongkon to Prince Damrong, 192/1610, 21 November 1902.

^{page 30 note 47} Thai administration was totally disrupted by the rebellion. The breakdown of administration even led some Englishmen to conclude that the Thai attempt to directly govern the former tributary states was hopeless. The British consul at Chiang Mai asserted that “no real or effective improvement can be expected in the administration of Northern Siam, until the guiding control is vested in intelligent Europeans versed in the language of the country, after the model of the neighbouring British Shan States of Mone and Kengtung.” Great Britain, Foreign Office Records, Series 69, No. 230, Beckett to Archer, No. 26, 15 July 1902.

^{page 30 note 48} Thailand, Ministry of Interior Records, Series 58, No. 188. Prince Damrong to Krom Mun Sommot, 674/3748,18 July 1910, and Phraya Surasi to Interior Ministry, telegraph, 23 July 1910.

^{page 30 note 49} Siffin, p. 109.

^{page 30 note 50} The inactivity of the chao is discussed at length in Thailand, Sixth Reign Records, Series 53, No. 9, Mom Chao Bowaradet, “Comments on a Report by Fitzmaurice,” 12 November 1919.

^{page 31 note 51} Marion J. Levy, Jr. Modernization and the Structure of Societies, p. 55.

^{page 31 note 52} Neon Snidvongs and Kasem Sirisumpundh, “Political Ideas of King Chulalongkon,” typescript, p. 18.

^{page 32 note 53} Thailand, National Archives, King Chulalongkon to Phraya Ratchasamparakon, 12 July 1883, in Nangsu Chut (Phiset) Letters (Special), Vol. 10.