§ Mr. Whitbreadstated to the house his wish to attract its particular attention for a very few moments. Although he had no distinct proposition to make, he still hoped for its indulgence, as his object was to do justice to the character of a very meritorious officer, whose feelings were wounded in consequence of some part of the examination of colonel Gordon, last night, in the committee. He alluded to Major Covell.—That respectable officer was that day introduced to him, and during the short period of his interview, expressed the apprehensions he entertained, lest from what appeared in the papers of the day, an impression might go abroad injurious to his character. He then presented to him the paper which he (Mr. W.) held in his hand. It was a letter from major-general Leith, expressive of the high opi- 657 nion which that officer entertained of the meritorious services of major Covell, an opinion not expressed alone in general terms, bat justified by a reference to his abie conduct in commanding the 76th regiment, in the late masterly retreat of the British army, under tile lamented sir John Moore.—Major Covell was anxious that he should state these circumstances to the house, to protect his reputation from any unmerited aspersion. In answer he (Mr. W.)did assure him that not a doubt existed in the breast of any member of the Committee, relative to his meritorious character and conduct, nor was there any symptom manifested by any person of a wish to cast the remotest suspicion upon cither. An irrelevant examination had been gone into, in which colonel Gordon was reduced to the necessity of an answer referring to him; but such examination was subsequently expunged from the minutes of the committee.—I do hope, said Mr. Whitbread, that the house will excuse this tresspass upon its attention, and that it will perceive that the sole object is to satisfy the feelings of a distinguished officer, (hear! hear!) apprehensive of undeservedly suffering in the estimation of his country, from the tendency of certain questions, put by a Committee of this house. I now beg leave, without either comment or observation, to read the following letter from major-general Leith to sir Thomas Musgrave:
No. 10, Cork-street, Burlington-street, 14th Feb. 1809.SIR—Having had the honour to command a Brigade in Spain of which the 76th regiment formed a part, I trust you will pardon my addressing you on a subject of a regimental nature, which the interest I feel in a corps that has faithfully served under my orders, and justice to major Covell, who commanded, have principally prompted. It is due to major Covell to state, that the late much regretted lieutenant colonel Symes, from having been employed on other duties and ill health, commanded the 76th regiment but one day in the field, near Logo, where he was obliged to relinquish it; previous and subsequent to that period major Covell paid the greatest attention to his charge, and I had hoped, that under the circumstances of the vacancy occasioned by the death of lieutenant colonel Symes, he would have received the vacant commission. I apprehend it was not known to the Commander in Chief, that during the whole of the arduous retreat of the late army major Covell had charge of the regiment, and without disparagement to lieutenant colonel Shaw, it could not fail to be a circumstance of a depressing nature, to find that offi- 658 cer, who was a subaltern in the 76th regiment, after major Covell had been five years a captain, now placed over him in the regiment.—In the anxious desire which I feel for the promotion of an old and respectable officer, I have to hope you will acq.uk me of the most distant supposition that the interests of the 76th regiment are not perfectly attended to by you as its natural guardian. And believe the respect with which I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient, &c. &c.JAMES LEITH, Maj. Gen. "General Sir Thos. Musgrave, Bart.
§ Sir Arthur Wellesleywished permission to say a few word? in consequence of what was stated in the letter just read. He had the honour of knowing both lieut.-colonel Shaw and major Covell, and of both he had a very high opinion. But notwithstanding the suggestions in that letter, he did not think it at all surprising that lieut.-col. Shaw, who in 1804 was a lieut. colonel, should be appointed to a regiment in preference to major Covell, who was not promoted to his majority until 1807. He himself had known col. Shaw in the 70th regiment so long back as the year 1787, and, from his services in India with the 76th, that officer had claims for promotion in that particular regiment. It was under the conviction of such claims that he thought proper to recommend the appointment to his royal highness the Commander in Chief, conceiving it probable that lieut. colonel Symes would have been allowed to sell his lieutenant-colonelcy. That sale the Commander in Chief did not allow; but, when col. Symes was changed to a garrison battalion, the appointment of col. Shaw took place.
§ Mr. Whitbreadhad, in reply, only to impress upon the house, that major Covell had been thirteen years a captain, and then purchased his majority.
§ The Speakerthen interfered, as there was no question before the house.