E 302 
 .6 
 .F8 
 
 
 FRANKLIN'S CEREMONIAL COAT 
 
 BY 
 
 RICHARD MEADE BACHE. 
 
 Reprinted from The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 
 January, 1900. 
 
FRANKLIN'S CEREMONIAL COAT 
 
 BY 
 
 RICHARD MEADE BACHE. 
 
 Reprinted from The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 
 January, 1900, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 1900. 
 

 aP^'-' 
 
 \:l'5o^ 
 
 Bob. AS^miox 
 Mar 28 00 
 
FKANKLIN'S CEREMONIAL COAT. 
 
 Probably no case of dress, not even that of Napoleon's 
 daily renewed small-clothes, nor of Prince Esterhazy's 
 diamond-besprent diplomatic coat, has received more fre- 
 quent mention than that as to whether or not Dr. Franklin 
 wore a certain dress on two certain formal occasions, and if 
 he did, whether or not the dress was worn on the second 
 occasion with any significance beyond ceremonial intention. 
 Immediately after the treaty of peace with Great Britain 
 the charge was rife that, at its signing, Franklin had worn 
 the dress in exultation over the British failure to subjugate 
 the Colonies. Even down to the present time the majority 
 of persons who know anything about the matter, unaware 
 that another dress was worn on that occasion, believe the 
 dress in question to have been then worn, and with the 
 express purpose of signalizing British defeat. 
 
 The point is, to say the least, interesting, because it also 
 incidentally involves another question, that as to whether or 
 not Franklin wore the dress in defiance at the signing of 
 the treaty of alliance between the United States and France. 
 It is, moreover, too important a point, both biographically 
 and historically, to have remained unsettled to the present 
 day, now over a hundred years. The fact is that those of 
 opposing beliefs have unwittingly had in mind a diflnerent 
 occasion for the second one. Obviously, discussion of the 
 question as to whether or not there was significance in 
 wearing a certain dress on the second of two related occa- 
 sions could reach no sane conclusion if views difiered as to 
 what was the second one on which it was worn. 
 
 The two occasions which will be here demonstrated to 
 have been actual ones are, first, that on which Franklin was 
 attacked in most unseemly fashion before King George the 
 
4 Franklin's Ceremonial Coat, 
 
 Third's Privy Council, on January 29, 1774, by the King's 
 Solicitor-General, Mr. "Wedderburn, for having transmitted 
 to America, for the information of his patriot friends in 
 Boston, what are known to the history of the times as the 
 " Hutchinson Letters ;" and, second, the occasion on which 
 he, jointly with his fellow-commissioners of the United 
 States, signed at Paris the treaties of commerce and alli- 
 ance, on February 6, 1778, between the United States and 
 France. The celebrated Dr. Joseph Priestley, the well- 
 known Dr. Edward Bancroft, the renowned orator Edmund 
 Burke, and many other distinguished men were present at 
 the proceedings before the Privy Council. Dr. Priestley 
 says, in the course of his account of them, — 
 
 " When he [Franklin] attended there [at the Privy Council], he was 
 dressed in a suit of Manchester velvet ; and Silas Deane told me that, 
 when they met in Paris to sign the treaty [treaties] between France and 
 America, he purposely put on that suit," 
 
 Dr. Bancroft, as reported by William Temple Franklin, 
 Dr. Franklin's grandson, says, in speaking of the same 
 occasion, — 
 
 " The Doctor was dressed in a full dress suit of spotted Manchester 
 velvet, and stood conspicuously erect, without the smallest movement of 
 any part of his body." 
 
 These two eye-witnesses of the scene at the Privy Council 
 therefore describe in general terms the character of the stuff 
 of the dress worn by Franklin on that occasion. But, be- 
 sides that, one of them. Dr. Priestley, it will have been 
 observed, cites Silas Deane, a fellow-commissioner of 
 Franklin's in France, as having told him that the Doctor 
 had purposely worn the same suit when, later, the treaties 
 between America and France were signed ; and more than 
 that, again, the other. Dr. Bancroft, who was himself present 
 on both occasions, informs William Temple Franklin, as 
 will presently appear, as to the conclusion drawn by himself 
 personally with reference to Franklin's latent intention in 
 wearing the costume on the seqynd occasion. The follow- 
 
Franklin^s Ceremonial Coat. 5 
 
 ing account of Dr. Bancroft to William Temple Franklin 
 is therefore trebly conclusive, as representing his own per- 
 sonal observation, and as confirming not only the obser- 
 vation of Dr. Priestley with reference to the particular 
 dress at the Privy Council, but also that of Mr. Deane with 
 reference to the dress and the significance of wearing it at 
 the signing of the treaties with France, 
 
 " It is a fact that he [Franklin], as Dr. Priestley mentions, signed the 
 treaties of commerce and eventual alliance with France in the clothes 
 which he had worn at the Cockpit, when the preceding transaction oc- 
 curred [the meeting of the Privy Council] . It had been intended, you 
 may recollect [Dr. Bancroft is informing William Temple Franklin], 
 that these treaties should be signed on the evening of Thursday, the 5th 
 of February ; and when Dr. Franklin had dressed himself for the day, 
 I observed that he wore the suit in question ; which I thought the more 
 extraordinary, as it had been laid aside for many months. This I 
 noticed to Mr. Deane, and soon after, when a messenger came from 
 Versailles, with a letter from Mr. Gerard, the French plenipotentiary, 
 stating that he was so unwell from a cold, that he wished to defer 
 coming to Paris to sign the treaties, until the next evening, I said to Mr. 
 Deane, ' Let us see whether the Doctor will wear the same suit of clothes 
 to-morrow ; if he does, I shall suspect that he is influenced by a recol- 
 lection of the treatment which he received at the Cockpit.' The morrow 
 came, and the same clothes were again worn, and the treaties signed. 
 After which these clothes were laid aside, and so far as my knowledge 
 extends, never worn afterwards. I once intimated to Dr. Franklin the 
 suspicion which his wearing these clothes on that occasion had excited 
 in my mind, when he smiled without telling me whether it was well or 
 ill founded. I have heard him sometimes say, that he was not insensible 
 to injuries, but that he never put himself to any trouble or inconvenience 
 to retaliate." 
 
 The two occasions to be considered, therefore, indubitably 
 are, first, that of the assault, in 1774, upon Franklin before 
 the Privy Council ; and, second, that of the simultaneous 
 signing, in 1778, of the two treaties between America and 
 France after the beginning of the Revolutionary War. Yet 
 the following quotation by Mr. Sparks from a letter to the 
 English Gentlemaii's Magazine of July, 1785, written by 
 a Mr. Whitefoord, shows that many persons then took, as 
 others still do, the second notable occasion when Franklin 
 
6 Franklin's Ceremonial Coat. 
 
 wore the dress to have been, not that of the signing of the 
 treaties between America and France, but that of the sub- 
 sequent signing of the treaty of peace between America 
 and Great Britain. As Mr. Whitefoord was seeking solely 
 to refute the statement of persons who imagined that the 
 second occasion was that of the signing of the treaty of 
 peace between America and Great Britain, and as he him- 
 self had been, as a secretary, one of the witnesses to that 
 very treaty, he could speak with confidence as to the par- 
 ticular point that he maintained, unaware, as his letter 
 shows, of what had led to popular misapprehension on the 
 subject. As his statement kept strictly to the point before 
 him, it is not surprising that it lacks complete elucidation 
 of the subject. It is surprising, however, that Mr. Sparks, 
 one of the most conscientious, accurate, and able of biog- 
 raphers, should have allowed to creep into his " Works of 
 Franklin" this contradiction by Mr. Whitefoord of a popu- 
 lar error, without coupling with it the statement that, al- 
 though Mr. Whitefoord was correct in denying that Frank- 
 lin wore the dress in question on the occasion of signing 
 the treaty of peace between America and Great Britain, he 
 had thereby innocently left the impression that the occur- 
 rence of Franklin's significantly wearing a certain dress at 
 a treaty-signing never took place at all. 
 
 The following is the note by Mr. Sparks, introducing the 
 passage referred to from the Gentleman's Magazine : 
 
 " Lord Brougliam, in his sketcli of the character of Mr. Wedderburn, 
 afterwards Lord Loughborough, recently published, has unguardedly- 
 repeated a false report respecting the signing of the treaty, which was 
 circulated soon after that event, but promptly refuted. In alluding to 
 Mr. Wedderburn's abusive speech against Dr. Franklin before the Privy 
 Council, Lord Brougham says, ' It is well known that, when the ambas- 
 sadors were met to sign the peace of Versailles, by which the indepen- 
 dence of America was acknowledged, Franklin retired, in order to change 
 his dress and affix his name to the treaty in those garments which he 
 wore when attending the Privy Council, and which he had kept by him 
 for the purpose many years.' This statement is entirely erroneous. The 
 report was fabricated in England at a time when the treaty was the topic 
 of vehement discussion ; and it was eagerly seized upon to gratify the 
 malevolence of a disappointed party. When it appeared in prints it was 
 
Franklin's Ceremonial Coat. 7 
 
 immediately contradicted by Mr. Whitefoord, who was present at the 
 signing of the treaty, and affixed his name to it as the secretary of the 
 English commissioner. ' This absurd story,' says Mr. Whitefoord, ' has 
 no foundation but in the imagination of the inventor. He supposes that 
 the act of signing the peace took place at the house of Dr. Franklin [at 
 Passy, near Paris] . The fact is otherwise ; the conferences were held, 
 and the treaty was signed, at the hotel of the British commissioner, 
 wkere Dr. Franklin and the other American commissioners gave their 
 attendance for that purpose. The court of Versailles having at that 
 time gone into mourning for the death of some German prince, the Doc- 
 tor, of course, was dressed in a suit of black cloth; and it is in the recol- 
 lection of the writer of this, and also he believes of many other people, 
 that when the memorable philippic was pronounced against Dr. Frank- 
 lin, in the Privy Council, he was dressed in a suit of figured Manchester 
 velvet." 
 
 Mr. Sparks, I say, overlooked the fact that this note, in 
 his first volume^ of the "Works of Franklin," is, through 
 default of comment by him, incongruous with the main 
 text in his fourth volume.^ The omission in the note in- 
 volves the injustice to himself of the implication that he 
 was unaware of the facts of the case, whereas the facts of 
 the case, in the proceedings before the Privy Council and all 
 matter relevant to the subsequent French treaty, are elab- 
 orately set forth by him. His account proves that what has 
 sometimes been erroneously represented as happening at 
 one of the two treaty-signings, really happened at the 
 other. The second signal occasion on which Franklin ap- 
 peared in the dress under consideration was, as Mr. Sparks 
 himself describes it, when he signed the treaties of com- 
 merce and alliance between America and France, not when 
 he signed the treaty of peace with Great Britain. Clearly, 
 the report of Franklin's having worn that dress when he 
 signed the treaty of peace with Great Britain must have 
 grown out of reports of Franklin's action when the treaties 
 with France were signed. 
 
 The pieces of cloth believed to have belonged to the coat 
 of this suit (for tradition says nothing of small-clothes to 
 correspond) were divided many years ago among some of 
 
 1 Vol. I. p. 488. 
 
 ^ Vol. IV. pp. 441 to 455, both inclusive. 
 
8 Franhlinh Ceremonial Coat. 
 
 Franklin's descendants. They would seem, without doubt, 
 to represent pieces of the coat described by the three per- 
 sons already cited; the same as also described by Madame 
 Campan, as of " brown cloth," the same mentioned by 
 Madame du Defland as "?)iorrfor^ [reddish-brownj velvet." 
 These descriptions of it tally in a general way with those of 
 Dr. Priestley, Dr. Bancroft, and Mr. Whitefoord, in de- 
 scribing the dress as made of " Manchester velvet, spotted 
 Manchester velvet, and figured Manchester velvet." The 
 descriptions of Mesdames Campan and du Detfand, how- 
 ever, introduce the idea of color, which those gentlemen do 
 not mention. A lady who has lately looked at a piece of 
 the cloth reputed to have belonged to the coat describes it 
 to me as " a sort of red-brown corduroy." 
 
 It only remains, then, in order to avoid assuming here 
 that the pieces of cloth extant are actually portions of the 
 coat worn by Franklin on the two memorable occasions 
 mentioned, to summarize the evidence pointing to the fact 
 that they are really such. First of all, family tradition, 
 over the brief space of only five generations, can hardly be 
 at fault in so regarding them. Then, again, the character 
 of the stuff" of the pieces, the largest of which now lies be- 
 fore me, accords with the previous description of Frank- 
 lin's dress by the persons of his time. That character is 
 resolvable into the appearance covered by the terms '^ cor- 
 duroy, velvet, reddish-brown." The face of the piece before 
 me exhibits parallel lines of a reddish-brown, flufify, cordu- 
 roy-like ribbing laid upon a heavy, rich background of 
 golden lustre. These lines of velvet pile being just an 
 eighth of an inch in width, and the golden hue of the back- 
 ground showing between them to a width of only half that, 
 the general effect of the fabric is of a rich reddish-brown, 
 relieved from sombreness by the delicate golden back- 
 ground. The stuff" certainly is not, as Dr. Bancroft de- 
 scribed the dress to be, "spotted." But, excluding the 
 idea of " spotted" as overwhelmingly discredited by the 
 mass of other testimony, we still have his statement that it 
 was of " Manchester velvet," and_the testimony of all the 
 
Franklin's Ceremonial Coat. 9 
 
 other observers cited accords exactly with the appearance of 
 this stuff which tradition ascribes as portions of the dress. 
 It would seem conclusive, therefore, from this present, com- 
 pared with the past, ocular evidence, confirmed by tradi- 
 tion, that the pieces of cloth described are portions of the 
 veritable dress in which Franklin stood before the Privy 
 Council, and in which he also assisted in signing the treaties 
 which meant Great Britain's declaration of war against 
 France for having become the ally of the United States in 
 her struggle for independence and final triumph by force of 
 arms. 
 
 Mr. "Whitefoord's letter to the Gentleman's Magazine 
 clearly brings out and refutes the charge against Franklin, 
 that he had not only worn the suit described at the signing 
 of the treaty of peace between America and Great Britain, 
 but that he had, in so doing, coincidentally made remarks 
 expressive of the significance of his action. Hence his 
 letter is headed, " Vindication of Dr. Franklin from a charge 
 against him.'" After two short introductory paragraphs, he 
 goes on to speak, as follows, of what shows the prevalence 
 of the false report regarding Franklin : 
 
 " This absurd story has no foundation but in the imagination of the 
 inventor. Until I saw your correspondent's letter, I did not know that 
 the story had already appeared in print. It is true, indeed, that I have 
 frequently heard it repeated in conversation, and have always treated 
 it with the contempt that it deserved ; but your correspondent, 'A Briton^ 
 (whose abilities m a writer I respect), has by admitting it into his letter, 
 given it a degree of consequence to which it is not otherwise entitled. 
 From my opinion of him as a man, I am also disposed to believe that he 
 will not persist in circulating a falsehood, knowing it to be such." 
 
 Then come two paragraphs describing Mr. Whitefoord's 
 relations to the signing of the treaty, and denying that Dr. 
 Franklin had changed his dress on that occasion or uttered 
 words attributed to him. The letter then concludes with 
 the passage quoted by Mr. Sparks. 
 
 The prevalent misapprehension at the time in England, 
 that Franklin had signalized the triumph of his country's 
 cause, at the signing of the treaty of peace with Great 
 
10 FranhUn^s Ceremonial Coat. 
 
 Britain, bj wearing the dress there in which he had been 
 insulted before the Lords in Council, showed public igno- 
 rance of the character of the man. When the dogs of war 
 had been slipped, despite his strenuous efforts for peace, he 
 was ready, as he proved himself to be, to go all honorable 
 lengths in the prosecution of the war to advantage. He 
 had even, in his philosophic way, breathed quiet defiance 
 to the enemy at the treaties with France, by w^earing the 
 very dress identified in his mind with one of the culmi- 
 nating events of which the sequel was war. But the war 
 ended, the treaty with Great Britain to be signed, his 
 thoughts at once reverted to the pleasantness of the paths 
 of enduring peace. His letters of the time prove the fact 
 alleged. He had many friends in England, and soon after 
 the treaty with her was signed he longed to see them once 
 more, and especially Mrs. William Hewson and her mother, 
 Mrs. Stevenson, who were the dearest of them all. Ac- 
 cordingly he promptly wrote to Mrs. Hewson of his desire 
 to cross the Channel to meet the family, to which he also 
 had become endeared. But, upon second thoughts, he 
 concluded that it were best to postpone his visit, lest his 
 appearance then in England might be attributed to his wish 
 to triumph over a discomfited opponent. A letter of his, 
 of January 27, 1783, to Mrs. Hewson, so clearly portrays 
 his feelings, not only for his friends, but for the whole Eng- 
 lish people, that I cannot do better than conclude with it as 
 bearing upon the whole previous discussion, through his 
 sentiments at the time, and upon his whole affectionate 
 nature. 
 
 " Passy, 27 January, 1783. 
 "... The departure of my dearest friend/ which I learn from your 
 last letter, greatly affects me. To meet with her once more in this life 
 was one of the principal motives of my proposing to visit England again 
 before my return to America. The last year carried off my friends Dr. 
 Pringle, Dr. Fothergill, Lord Kames, and Lord le Despencer. This has 
 begun to take away the rest, and strikes the hardest. Thus the ties I 
 had to that country, and indeed to the world in general, are loosened one 
 by one, and I shall soon have no attachment left to make me unwilling 
 to follow. 
 
 * The death of Mrs. Stevenson, the mother of Mrs. Hewson. 
 
Franklin's Ceremonial Coat. 11 
 
 " I intended writing when I sent the eleven books, but I lost the time 
 in looking for the twelfth. I wrote with that ; and hope it came to hand. 
 I therein asked your counsel about my coming to England. On reflec- 
 tion, I think I can, from my knowledge of your prudence, foresee what 
 it will be, viz., not to come too soon, lest it should seem braving and 
 insulting some who ought to be respected. I shall, therefore, omit that 
 journey till I am near going to America, and then just step over to take 
 leave of my friends, and spend a few days with you. I propose bring- 
 ing Ben with me, and perhaps may leave him under your care.^ 
 
 "At length we are at peace, God be praised, and long, very long, may 
 it continue. All wars are follies, very expensive, and very mischievous 
 ones. When will mankind be convinced of this, and agree to settle their 
 differences by arbitration ? Were they to do it, even by the cast of a 
 die, it would be better than by fighting and destroying each other. 
 
 " Spring is coming on, when travelling will be delightful. Can you 
 not, when you see your children all at school, make a little party, and 
 take a trip hither ? I have now a large house, delightfully situated, in 
 which I could accommodate you and two or three friends, and I am but 
 half an hour's drive from Paris. 
 
 " In looking forward, twenty-five years seem a long period, but, in look- 
 ing back, how short ! Could you imagine, that it is now full a quarter of 
 a century since we were first acquainted ? It was in 1757. During the 
 greatest part of the time, I lived in the house with my dear deceased 
 friend, your mother; of course you and I conversed with each other 
 much and often. It is to all our honors, that in all that time we never 
 had among us the smallest misunderstanding. Our friendship has been 
 all clear sunshine, without the least cloud in its hemisphere. Let me 
 conclude by saying to you, what I have had too frequent occasions to say 
 to my other remaining old friends, 'The fewer we become, the more let 
 us love one another.' Adieu, and believe me ever, yours most affection- 
 ately, 
 
 "B. Franklin." 
 
 Franklin's mental attitude, thus revealed by himself, 
 proves it to have been impossible that, at the signing of the 
 treaty of peace, or at any subsequent period, he could have 
 harbored even a thought of exulting over a defeated and 
 kindred people. 
 
 ^ The visit, in the meaning in Franklin's mind, never took place. On 
 the contrary, as it turned out, Mrs. Hewson, with her family, paid a visit 
 to him at Passy the winter before his departure from France. Franklin 
 stopped at Southampton for a few hours on his way to America. The 
 "Ben" of whom he speaks was his grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache. 
 
 / 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 ♦ 011 769 907 9^ 
 
 .r