The incident, however, did not end here. A like request had gone to the French priests and the members of their parishes. At first the Bishop gave permission for the making of the present to the king; but later when it was rumoured that the king would liberate the captives to “gain merit,” the bishop not only declined himself to make the gift but withdrew his permission previously granted to his people. This reversal caused great indignation among the officials responsible for gathering the presents. After a conference in which the bishop was informed, as the other foreigners had been, that the gift was not regarded as a participation in a religious rite but only as a customary token of congratulation, the bishop returned to his original attitude, restored permission to his people and offered a gift in his own behalf. But thereupon a new turn in the affair developed; the eight French priests conferred together and concluded that the explanation was only a subterfuge, the real object of the gift being an act of worship; and they decided not to participate for themselves, notwithstanding the bishop’s permission. This course had the disadvantage of placing them in the position of disrespect to the government, since their superior had approved of the participation. Accordingly the eight priests were admonished by the government that if they refused to acquiesce in the royal request they must leave the country. Remaining inexorable, the order was given for their banishment, but the bishop was permitted to remain because he had complied with the request. This decree remained in force until revoked by King Mongkut in 1851. Some months later the foreign residents of Bangkok were surprised to read in an English paper of Singapore a statement that the deported priests, on their passage through Singapore, had given;—a version of the affair in which they appeared as heroes who had chosen expulsion rather than participation in pagan rites while the Protestant missionaries had purchased exemption by acquiescence. Unfortunately this interpretation of the incident to the glory of the eight priests placed their own bishop in an unfavourable light. ABANDONING THE MEDICAL PROFESSION The distress of mind which Dr. House felt so keenly over the perplexities of his profession, coupled with eagerness for work that would give more direct propagation of the Gospel, caused him to determine that as soon as another medical man should come out to Siam he would abandon medical work. When at length Rev. D. B. Bradley, M.D., returned after a sojourn of three years in America and brought with him yet another doctor, Rev. L. B. Lane, M.D., Dr. House supposed that his longed-for time of release had arrived. In that expectation he wrote: