MY DEAR SIR

Capt Manley1 has obligd me with your favor of the 5th. He and McNeil
are both here with different Views. The one to obtain another Ship, and
the other to get the Sentence of the Court Martial by which he is
censurd & broke, reversd. Perhaps both may be disappointed. I have
receivd a Number of Letters by both. One from you. To this I shall pay
a very particular Regard, because I am well satisfied you never suffer
Prejudices to divert your Attention from the great object--the publick
Good. "Manly is a blunt, honest and I believe brave officer.' I observe
your Caution; and I admire it because I think it is a proof of your
Integrity. Manlys Bravery is an Article of your Beliefe. His Bluntness&
Honesty, of Certainty. I have not yet lookd into the Papers; but I
recollect, when they were read in Congress, to have heard the Want of
Experience imputed to him, and some thing that had the Appearance of
blameing him for not giving out any Signals for the Direction of the
Ships under his Command. This it must be ownd, strongly implys the Want
if not the total Absense of Discretion. Now I would ask my Friend,
whether the Character of a blunt & honest officer entitles him to the
Command of one of our Capital Ships if he is "deficient in point of
Experience & Discretion." The Characteristick of a Sailor is the blunt
honest Tar. They carry this Character to an inimitable Height. But
surely every honest blunt or even brave Tar is not fit for Command in
our Navy. I some times fear there was an Error in the beginning. Thus
much for Manly. "His Address (viz Mc Neils) is insinuating. His
Assurance great. He may tell you fine Storys" &c. How contemptible does
he appear. I should think he had taken a Lesson from Hutchinsons
political Book, if I had not Reason to believe that he used to despise
him most heartily. But I advert to a Letter from another of my Friends
to whose upright opinions I have always given Weight; there I find "He