“Yet there were not wanting a party whose motives were different. They wished for the loaves and fishes of government and cared for nothing else but a translation of the diadem from London to Boston, New York or Philadelphia, or, in other words, the creation of a new monarchy in America and to form niches for themselves in the temple of royalty. This spirit manifested itself strongly among the officers at the close of the war and I have been afraid the army would not have been disbanded if the common soldiers could have been kept together. This spirit they developed in the Order of Cincinnati, where I trust it will expend itself in a harmless flame and soon become extinguished.” II. A COMMITTEE ON TITLES. Congress was to have met March 4, 1789, but a quorum of the House of Representatives was not had until April 1 and in the Senate not until four days later. From this time until the arrival of President Washington, April 23—Vice-President John Adams arriving only three days before—the attention of Congress was taken up with preliminary matters such as providing a home for the Executive, framing rules for themselves, considering details of the inauguration, etc. On April 23 Senators Oliver Ellsworth, William S. Johnson (both of Connecticut) and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, at the instance of Adams, were appointed a committee to confer with the House of Representatives on titles—and thus began one of the fiercest debates in the history of the first United States Senate. On its outcome hinged the question whether the new government was to be monarchial in its forms or strictly plebeian. As a preliminary skirmish Lee, on April 23, produced a copy of the resolution for appointing the Title Committee and moved that it be transmitted to the House of Representatives. This was opposed by Maclay, who records that Lee knew “the giving of titles would hurt us. I showed the absurdity of his motion, plain enough, but it seems to me that by getting a division of the resolution I could perhaps throw out the part about titles altogether. Mr. [Charles] Carroll of Maryland showed that he was against titles.” The motion, notwithstanding, was carried. But now Adams precipitated matters by asking how he should direct a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and called on the Senators for enlightenment. There was a manifest disinclination to interfere, but the Vice-President persisted until the question was pointedly put as to whether the Speaker should be styled “Honorable.” It was passed in the negative and the first victory against titles was scored.