MISCELLANEOUS NOTICES &C. XXXlii 
sound of a in all is precisely the same as that of o in extol, modify, 
&c., and o with some mark over it is generally used. He says & is 
employed as the French « long and short. This would imply that 
the Siamese had such a sound in their language, but all the French 
writers regarding the language declare that the Siamese have no such 
sound. They have sounds which bear some slight resemblance to 
that of the French vowel, hut it is far from being identical. 
Passing these things, he remarks, p. 330 “ The Siamese seem 
to have no distinct B&li code of civil or criminal Law,” and after the 
intervention of a single sentence, he adds ; “ It may probably how¬ 
ever be found, as I am inclined to believe it will be^.that B&li Codes 
do exist in Siam.” 
First, it seems they have none; then, it may probably be found 
that they have! To cut off at least one horn of the dilemma, it 
may be definitely affirmed that they have such a Code, passing under 
the name of Dhamma sdtr —a title of frequent occurrence in almost 
all those works of which the Colonel professes to give us an analysis. 
On p. 331 three titles of codes are given on the authority of Dr. 
Leyden as employed by La Loubere . They are written PJira Tam- 
ra, P,kra Tam mon and P,hra Kam ma noot. I have not either 
of the authors mentioned to refer to, but apprehend the two last to 
be sadly misspelled— PJira Tamra denotes a body of instructions or 
rules ; these may relate either to morals, or medicine (which is the 
general application,) or even to the arts. 
I cannot learn that the Siamese have any collection of laws called 
Phra Tam mon , hut they have have one called Phra Tam nun and 
another Phra Kam not Kot mai which I suspect to be the works 
intended. But this last name is generally applied to all manner of 
treatises of a legal nature, much like our English words Institutes 
and Commentary. The other collection contains specific limitations, 
as of the time which a suit may be deferred without being nullified. 
The expression t,ho sok, (p. 331 4, L from bott.) is explained as 
though it denoted 2 years of a century, —which is not the case, but 
2 years of a cycle of 12 years. (See p. 87 of the Grammatical No¬ 
tices, which I send you herewith.) 
