Finally the matter came to a vote and the report of the Title Committee, conferring the title of “Elective Majesty” on Washington was rejected. Then began the fight, for, at least, some kind of a title for the President. Izard moved for the title of “Excellency,” but he withdrew it, upon which Lee suggested “Highness” with some prefatory word such as “Elective Highness.” Maclay records: “It was insisted that such a dignified title would add greatly to the weight and authority of the Government, both at home and abroad. I declared myself of a totally different opinion; that at present it was impossible to add to the respect entertained for General Washington; that if you gave him the title of any foreign prince or potentate, a belief would follow that the manners of that prince and his modes of government would be adopted by the President. (Mr. Lee had, just before I got up, read over a list of the titles of all the princes and potentates of the earth, marking where the word ‘highness’ occurred. The Grand Turk had it, all the crown princes of Germany had it, sons and daughters of crown heads, etc.) That particularly ‘Elective Highness,’ which sounded nearly like ‘Electoral Highness,’ would have a most ungrateful sound to many thousands of industrious citizens who had fled from German oppression; that ‘Highness’ was part of the title of a prince or princess of the blood and was often given to dukes; that it was degrading our President to place him on a par with any prince of any blood in Europe, nor was there one of them that could enter the list of true glory with him.”
X.
“Royal Etiquette.”
This debate, beginning probably at the usual time for the Senate’s meeting, namely 10 a. m., lasted until 3.30 p. m., by which time another committee was appointed to consider a title for the President. Concluding his record of the notable debate of this day, Maclay writes: “This whole silly business is the work of Mr. Adams and Mr. Lee. Izard follows Lee and the New England men ... follow Mr. Adams. Mr. [Charles] Thompson [Secretary of the old Congress] says this used to be the case in the old Congress. I had, to be sure, the greatest share in this debate and must now have completely sold (no, sold is a bad word for I have got nothing for it) every particle of court favor, for a court our House seems determined on, and to run into all the fooleries, fopperies, fineries and pomp of royal etiquette.”
When Maclay attended the Senate on the following day, Saturday, May 9, he notes: “I know not the motive but never was I received with more familiarity, nor quite so much, before by the members. Ellsworth, in particular, seemed to show a kind of fondness.”
XI.
Defeat of the Titleists.
After correcting the minutes, the Title Committee, appointed by the Senate on the day before, reported “His Highness, the President of the United States of America, and Protector of the Rights of the Same” for Washington. Senator William Few, of Georgia, spoke to Maclay, intimating his unwillingness to do anything hastily. He then addressed the Senate on the same lines, although he did not pointedly move for postponement. Meantime the clerk of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar and announced the adoption of the report of the Joint Committee, which rejected all titles.
At this point Maclay got up, said that what Few had said amounted to a motion for a postponement and asked leave to second him. “I then pointed out,” records Maclay, “the rupture that was likely to ensue with the other House; that this was a matter of very serious import and I thought it our indispensable duty to avoid any inconvenience of that kind; that by the arrangement between the Houses, in case of disagreement, a conference might be requested; that my intention was, if the postponement was carried, to move immediately for a Committee of Conference to be appointed on the differences between the Houses and I had hopes that by these means all subjects of debate would be done away.”
Now Reed moved that the report might be adopted but he was not seconded. Senator Caleb Strong [of Massachusetts] was in favor of the postponement but was interrupted by the Chair. Senator [Tristram] Dalton [of Massachusetts] also was in favor of it and Maclay records: “I could now see a visible anxiety in the Chair. Strong was up again and said among other things that he thought the other House would follow—but there was risk in it.”
Evidently the tide began to turn against titles, for Maclay records: “I had a fine, slack and easy time of it today. Friends seemed to rise in succession. Lee went over his old ground twice but owned, at last, that there was difficulty every way but said plainly that the best mode for the House was to adopt the [Senate] report—and then the other House would follow. He found, however, the current began to turn against him and he laid his head on his hands as if he would have slept.”
Finally Izard got up and said that he was in favor of a postponement. “I could see the Vice-President kindle at him,” records Maclay. “Izard had remarked that the House of Representatives had adopted the report rejecting titles but the Chair interrupted him, saying: ‘No, we had no right to know, nor could we know it until after the clerk had this morning official information.’ The members fixed themselves and the question was called for.”