Samuel Reynolds House of Siam, pioneer medical missionary, 1847-1876Feltus, George Haws
History
Samuel Reynolds House of Siam, pioneer medical missionary, 1847-1876
Feltus, George Haws
House, Samuel Reynolds, 1817-1899
The status of the mission was deemed so critical that Dr. House
was authorised to report the situation to the mission office in
New York and to ask permission for the missionaries to quit Siam
as the last resort and to attach themselves to missions in other
lands. The reply, received nine months later, gave full authority
to the missionaries in the matter, and provisionally assigned Dr.
House as assistant to Dr. Happer in China. This assignment had
been suggested by Dr. House in his letter to the Board because Dr.
Happer, knowing of the crisis in Siam, had written him to come to
China, adding that he “always thought Siam an unpromising field;
and that after the Board gets out of it they might as well keep
clear of it.” While waiting for the desired authority to quit the
field the missionaries kept an eye open for a favourable chance to
get away in safety, deeming themselves warranted in escaping with
their lives in any vessel that could be found to take them away.
Thus did the Mission come very close to an untimely end.
DEATH OF THE OLD KING
The serious foreboding of the natives and foreigners alike was
greatly intensified by the rumour that the king had shut himself
up in his palace and would have no communication with his nobles.
Daily the court assembled according to custom but the king took no
counsel with them concerning public affairs. So few were permitted
to enter the royal presence that it was difficult to ascertain
whether he was sick or only in a pet as on a previous occasion.
It was, however, a case of serious illness from a chronic disease
which had rapidly become critical.
About the middle of February of that notable year, 1851, the king
sent a document to the assembled nobles, briefly stating that
he despaired of recovery, and left to the council of princes and
three chief ministers the selection of a successor; and at the
same time turned over the reins of government to these three
ministers. Although the king at this time refrained from nominating
a successor, he had some months previously expressed a preference
for a favourite son, but the nobles would not confirm his wish.
Besides this son there were two other aggressive aspirants for the
throne; all three candidates being conservatives. While both Chao
Fah Yai and Chao Fah Noi had legitimate claims to the throne there
was no apparent prospect that either would be chosen, for the other
three claimants were strongly united in their opposition especially
to the former because of his known friendliness towards the English.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account