to me as captain of the Providence, at New York, he says, "You would be surprised to hear what a vast number of applications are continually making for officers in the new frigates, especially for the command. The strong recommendations from those provinces where any frigates are building, have great weight". He adds, "My utmost endeavors shall be exerted to serve you; from a conviction that your merit entitles you to promotion, and that you ought to command some who were placed in a higher rank than yourself".

I ask, sir, did these "recommendations" plead more successfully than the merit of all the gallant men who first braved the ocean in the cause of America? Your candor must answer, "yes". What a hapless prospect then have those, who can only claim from past, though applauded services! Credit, it is alleged, has been, however, taken in this Revolution for "unparalleled heroism". I am sorry for it, for great as our pretensions to heroism may be, yet modesty becomes young nations as well as young men. But the first beginning of our navy was, as navies now rank, so singularly small, that I am of opinion it has no precedent in history. Was it a proof of madness in the first corps of sea officers to have, at so critical a period, launched out on the ocean, with only two armed merchant ships, two armed brigantines and one armed sloop, to make war against such a power as Great Britain? They had, perhaps, in proportion to their numbers, as much sense as the present table of officers can boast of; and it has not yet been proved, that they did not understand, at least as well their duty.

Their first expedition was more glorious than any other that has been since effected from our coast. Every officer on that service merited promotion, who was capable of receiving it. And, if there was an improper man placed over them as commander-in-chief, was that a reason to slight or disgrace the whole corps? Has the subsequent military conduct of those officers, by whom the first corps of sea officers were superseded, justified the preference they had to command the new frigates? If it has not, what shall we say in favor of the precedence, which "Repugnant to an Act of Congress, of the 22d of December, 1775", and contrary to all rule or example, was given them in the second table of naval rank, adopted the 10th of October, 1776? Could anything have been more humilitating than this to sea officers appointed and commissioned in 1775? Would it not have been more kind to have dismissed them from the service, even without assigning a reason for so doing? Before any second arrangement of naval rank had been made, perhaps it would have been good policy to have commissioned five or seven old mariners, who had seen war, to have examined the qualifications of the candidates, especially those who made their conditions and sought so earnestly after the command of the new frigates. Those commissioners might also have examined the qualifications of the first corps of sea officers, proposed to promote such as were capable of it, and struck from the list such as

were unequal to the commission they bore, &c. Thus, by giving precedence in rank to all the captains who had served and were thought worthy of being continued; and also to all lieutenants whose merit and services with their approved qualifications had entitled them to promotion to the rank of captains, justice might have been done both to individuals and to the public. It has been said, with a degree of contempt, by some of the gentlemen who came into the continental navy, the second year of the war, that I "was only a lieutenant at the beginning"; and pray, what were they when I was out on the ocean in that character? They pay me a compliment. To be diffident, is not always a proof of ignorance, but sometimes the contrary. I was offered a captain's commission at the first, to command the Providence, but declined it. Let it, however, be remembered, that there were three grades of sea lieutenants established by the Act of Congress of the 22d of December, 1775; and as I had the honor to be placed at the head of the first of those grades, it is not quite fair to confound me with the last; I had sailed before this Revolution in armed ships and frigates, yet when I came to try my skill, I am not ashamed to own, I did not find myself perfect in the duties of a first lieutenant. However, I by no means admit, that any one of the gentlemen who so earnestly sought after rank and the command of the new frigates the next year, was at the beginning able to teach me any part of the duty of a sea officer. Since that time it is well known, there has been no comparison between their means of acquiring military marine knowledge and mine.

If midnight study, and the instruction of the greatest and most learned sea officers, can have given me advantages, I am not without them. I confess, however, I am yet to learn. It is the work of many years' study and experience to acquire the high degree of science necessary for a great sea officer. Cruising after merchant ships, (the service on which our frigates have generally been employed) affords, I may say, no part of the knowledge necessary for conducting fleets and their operations. There is now, perhaps, as much difference between a single battle between two ships, and an engagement between two fleets, as there is between a single duel and a ranged battle between two armies. I became captain by right of service and succession, and by the order and commission of the commander-in-chief, his Excellency Ezek Hopkins, Esq., the 10th day of May, in the year 1776, at which time the captain of the Providence was broke and dismissed from the navy, by a court martial. Having arrived at Philadelphia, with a little convoy from Boston, soon after the declaration of independence, President Hancock gave me a captain's commission under the United States, dated the 8th day of August, 1776. I did not at the time, think that this was doing me justice, as it did not correspond with the date of my appointment by the commander-in-chief. It was, however, I presumed, the first naval commission granted under the United States, and as a resolution of Congress

had been passed the 17th day of April, 1776, "that the appointment of captains should not determine their rank, which was to be settled before commissions were granted," my commission of the 8th of August, must, by that resolution, take rank of every commission dated the 10th of October. My duty brought me again to Philadelphia in April, 1777; and President Hancock then told me that new naval commissions were ordered to be distributed to the officers.

He prayed me to show him the captain's commission he had given me the year before. I did so. He then desired me to leave it with him a day or two, till he could find a leisure moment to fill up a new commission. I made no difficulty. When I waited on him the day before my departure, to my great surprise, he put into my hands a commission dated the 10th day of October, 1776, and numbered eighteen in the margin! I told him that was not what I expected, and demanded my former commission. He turned over various papers on the table and at last told me he was very sorry to have lost or mislaid it. I shall here make no remark on such conduct in a president of congress, perhaps it needs none. He paid me many compliments on the services I had performed in vessels of little force; he assured me no officer stood higher in the opinion of Congress than myself; a proof of which, he said, was my late appointment to the command of secret expeditions, with five sail and men proportioned, against St. Kitts, Pensacola, Augustine, &c.

That the table of naval rank that had been adopted the 10th of October, 1776, had been drawn up in a hurry, and without well knowing the different merits and qualifications of the officers; but it was the intention of Congress to render impartial justice and always to honor, promote and reward merit. And, as to myself, he added that I might depend on receiving a very agreeable appointment soon after my return to Boston, and until I was perfectly satisfied respecting my rank, I should have a separate command. I returned to Boston and it was not long before I received orders to proceed to Europe to command the great frigate building at Amsterdam for the United States, then called the Indien and since the South Carolina. It was proposed I should proceed to France in a ship belonging to that kingdom; but, some difficulties arising, the sloop of war Ranger, of eighteen guns, was put under my command for that purpose and to serve afterwards as a tender to the Indien. Political reasons defeated the plan, after I had met our commissioners at Paris, agreeable to their order, to consult on the ways and means of carrying it into execution. I returned in consequence to Nantes, and reassumed the command of the Ranger. When I returned from Europe and my sovereign told the world that some of my military conduct on the coast of England had been " attended with circumstances so brilliant as to excite general applause and admiration," when the honours conferred on me by his most christian majesty, to wit, a gold sword, on which is impressed the highly flattering words: "Vindicati Maris Ludovicus XVI.

Remunerator Strenuo Vindici," and emblems of the alliance between the United States and France, accompanied with the order and patent of military merit, and a very strong and particular letter of recommendation to Congress in my behalf, were declared by them to be "highly acceptable;" when I was thought worthy of a vote of thanks and general approbation so strong and comprehensive, as that hereto subjoined, in Paper No. I was far from thinking that such expressions were all the gratification I had to expect. The committee of Congress, to whom was referred my general examination by the board of admiralty, with the report of that board thereon, were of opinion that I had merited a gold medal, with devices declarative of the vote of thanks, I had received from the United States in Congress assembled. And I was persuaded that I should also be promoted, or at least restored to the place I held in the naval line of rank in the year 1775. I waited patiently for some time, but nothing was done on either of these subjects. Being informed by some members of Congress, that it was necessary I should present my claim respecting rank in writing, I did so, in a letter of which No. is a copy, addressed to his excellency the president of Congress, the 28th of May, 1781. My application was referred to a special committee who, as I have been informed by one of its members, made a report in my favor and gave as their opinion that I had merited to be promoted to the rank of rear-admiral. Before Congress had taken up the report an application in opposition to me was made by two of the captains who had superseded me. Upon this the report was recommitted. The committee once more reported in my favour; but without giving a direct opinion respecting my promotion, and recommended the appointment of a commander-inchief of the navy, &c., as may be seen by the annexed copy, No. of that report; which, on account of the thinness of Congress, was on the 24th of August, 1781, endorsed "Not to be acted upon". It is, however, plain, it was intended to be taken up again, when a proper opportunity presented itself; otherwise it would not have been retained on the files of Congress. This appears also by the extract of a letter, No. which I wrote from Portsmouth, in New Hampshire, and the answer, No. that I received from the honourable John Mathews, Esq., who was chairman of the committee respecting the honorary medal, and a member of the committee on my rank. While my claim to rank stood recommitted before the committee, I had an unanimous election by ballot in Congress, the 26th of June, 1781, to command the America, of 74 guns; and, as I was erroneously informed, ready to launch at Portsmouth; [and] several of the members of Congress told me as their opinion, that my rank was thereby settled beyond a dispute; because the America was the only ship in the service "of forty guns and upwards;" and Congress had resolved that captains of ships of 40 guns and upwards should rank as colonels, and captains of ships between 20 and 40 guns as lieutenant-colonels. There appeared

so much reason and justice in that opinion, that I was then and am still inclined to believe it was not without foundation; for certainly there is no comparison between the trust reposed in a captain of the line and a captain of a frigate; and, except in England, there is no equality between their distinct ranks. A captain of the line must at this day be a tactician. A captain of a cruising frigate may make shift without having ever heard of naval tactics. Until I arrived in France, and became acquainted with that great tactician Count D'Orvilliers and his judicious assistant the Chevalier Du Pavillion, who each of them honoured me with instructions respecting the science of governing the operations and police of a fleet, I confess I was not sensible how ignorant I had been, before that time, of naval tactics.

I have already said, there were three grades of sea lieutenants, established by the act of Congress, of the 22d of December, 1775. If I may be allowed at this date to judge, it would be sound wisdom to re-adopt the same number of subaltern grades, exclusive of midshipmen, under the same, or some other denomination. From the observations I have made, and what I have read, it is my opinion, that in a navy there ought to be at least as many grades below a captain of the line, as there are below a colonel of a regiment. Even the navy of France is deficient in subaltern grades, and has paid dearly for that error in its constitution, joined to another of equal magnitude, which authorizes ensigns of the navy to take charge of a watch on board ships of the line. One instance may be sufficient to shew this. The Zélé, in the night between the 11th and 12th of April, 1782, ran on board the Ville de Paris, which accident was the principal cause of the unfortunate battle that ensued next day between Count de Grasse, and Admiral Rodney. That accident in all probability would not have happened, had the deck of the Zélé been at the time commanded by a steady experienced lieutenant of the line, instead of a young ensign. The charge of the deck of a ship of the line, should in my judgement never be entrusted to an officer under twenty-five years of age. At that time of life he may be supposed to have served nine or ten years, a term not more than sufficient to have furnished him with the necessary knowledge for so great a charge. It is easy to conceive that the minds of officers must become uneasy, when they are continued too long in any one grade, which must happen, (if regard be paid to the good of the service) where there are no more subaltern grades than midshipman and lieutenant. Would it not be wiser to raise young men by smaller steps and to increase the number?

I have many things to offer respecting the formation of our navy, but shall here limit myself to one, which I think a preliminary to the formation and establishment of a naval constitution suitable to the local situation, resources, and prejudices of the Continent. The constitution adopted for the navy in the year 1775 and by which it