ctor, which was
presented in 1791; a second "profile in black leather" given by Robert
Patterson, a President of the Society, and an oil portrait of him from
Mrs. Dr. Caspar Wistar.

His appearance in person, when for the first time he sat among his
colleagues of the Society, was on the evening of February 19, 1796--the
night upon which the two papers, commented upon in the last few
paragraphs were presented, although he probably did not read them
himself, this being done by a friend or by the secretary. Sixteen
members were present. Among these were some whose names have become
familiar elsewhere, such as Barton, Woodhouse and others. Today, the
presence in the same old Hall of a renowned scientist, from beyond the
seas, would literally attract crowds. Then it was not the fashion. But
probably he had come unannounced and unheralded. Further, he was
speaking at other hours on other topics in the city.

It is not recorded that he spoke before the philosophers. Perhaps he
quietly absorbed their remarks and studied them, although he no doubt
was agreeably aroused when Mr. Peale presented

to the Society a young son of four months and four days old, being
the first child born in the Philosophical Hall, and requested that
the Society would give him a name. On which the Society
unanimously agreed that, after the name of the chief founder and
late President of the Society, he should be called Franklin.

In anticipation of any later allusion to Priestley's sojourn in
Philadelphia be it observed that he attended meetings of the American
Philosophical Society three times in 1796, twice in 1797, three times in
1801 and once in 1803, and that on February 3rd, 1797, he was chosen to
deliver the annual oration before the Society, but the Committee
reported that

they waited on Dr. Priestley last Monday afternoon, who received
the information with great politeness, but declined accepting of
the appointment.

This lengthy digression must now be interrupted. It has gone almost too
far, yet it was necessary in order that an account of the early
experimental contributions of the exile might be introduced
chronologically. As already remarked, Americans are most deeply
interested in everything Priestley did during his life in this country
and particularly in his scientific activities.

On resuming the story of the routine at Northumberland in the closing
months of the year 1795, there