Gentn

Capt Osborne has just recd a letter without any signature dated in the Committee of Safety at Exeter the 4th Inst which I. must suppose comes from that Body. On that presumption only I answer as I suppose will Captain Osborne. 'Tis very strange after Colo [Pierse] Long has taken the Pains to send to Genl Ward & received his answer respecting those men, he should trouble the Committee of Safety of this State about the matter. Colo Long told me that Genl Ward said if the men had listed with Capt Osborne in his Company of Marines during the War, they might remain with him; but to tell Capt Osborne not to enlist any more out of that Regiment: If the Genl had thought proper the men should be deliver'd up he would have ordered Capt Osborne to that effect. Remember the men have entered as Marines not Mariners, & Marines by a Vote of Congress are on the same footing as soldiers in the land servi.ce; Notwithstanding we can keep them & are not accountable to the Committee of Safety of any State for such conduct; yet rather than any reflection should fall on us or that we should be the means of retarding the too long neglected march of Colo Long, shall agree to give them up, if he again desire it; for I shall not expect he will send to Baltimore for advice & make this an excuse for further delay.

I must likewise remind the Committee of Safety that every discouraging method is taken in this State to prevent the manning of the Raleigh. A pretended Embargo is seemingly complied with. Here are vessels sailing every day whether with or without leave Lcannot say, for I have never been made acquainted with the Embargo. It ha5 been the custom of other Nations to include the commanders of ships of War as well as Forts in any directions for special Embargoes. An Embargo is laid & strictly adhered to in the other States, of all private property. All Privateers are stopp'd for the purpose of manning the Continental Ships of War & filling up the army. The State of Massachusetts Bay strictly keep to their first intention, insomuch that the same owners concern'd in the Privateer now in Portsmouth were obliged to bring two of their ships up from the Castle, which had been victualled & manned some time & ready for the Sea: they have petitioned & remonstrated to the Council several times since urging the Damage and great expence they had been at, but to no effect: they only received for answer, the public good must be pref er'd to private interest: This I can affirm from the Council Chamber not a fortnight ago; where I had an opportunity of hearing it.

How different here! A Privateer launch'd, Rigg'd & Mann'd since the Embargo was laid (if it may be so called) The other States stop all Privat — strictly relying on their sister States to preserve the same Virtuous conduct. I beg you to consider how this matter will appear in publick. My Friend John Langdon, Esqr is concerned, to whom I acknowledge every tie of Friendship, & could I pref er Friendship to Duty & the good of the service I am engaged in should be silent in this matter. But I act from a consciousness of my own duty, which is to make you acquainted tho' late, That if the Privateer above mention'd is suffered to depart, it will bring a Reflection on this State, operate in public against Mr Langdon and manifestly tend to the disadvantage of the public service, particularly to manning the Ship under my Command; of which I bear testimony & do remonstrate against her going to your Honours, & leave it to your further consideration, as the General Court is not now sitting.² I am, Your Honas [&c.]

N.B. 130 able Body'd men going in this Ship would fill up some space in the army or Navy.