10 MARCH 1838, Page 16


Ire a note to the remarks on Colonel EvAreis appointment to the Order of the Bath,* we referred to the nominations of Lieutenant. General Sir HENRY GREY, and Sir HERBERT TAYLOR, to show that, in some cases, the Order had been capriciously and impro' perly bestowed by the late King. We said that neither of thole officers had "ever commanded an army, a division, or even a bri- gade against the enemy.' In a letter in the Morning Chroniek of yesterday, " An Old Officer of the Army of 1814 " came to the rescue of the late Royal favourite : with what benefit to Sir Hsi. am and his reputation, will soon appear. This celebrated General is certainly shown, once in his life, to have commanded a brigade in action. The London Gazette re. cords, that on the 2d of February 1814, in the attack upon the village of Mexem, on the advance of' the troops under Sir THOMAS GRAHAM, upon Antwerp, Majoi-General TAYLOR "ably se- conded" Major-General GIBBS. The importance of' this affair may be judged of by the casualties-6 rank and file were killed, and 13 officers and 120 men and one horse were wounded ; "two small guns, two gun-carriages, and 35 rounds of ammunition" formed the only trophies of the day. Having corrected our " unfounded assertion"—which, from the extraordinary brilliancy of this victory, is no doubt inexcusable— we shall now prove that Sir HERBERT'S splendid services on the occasion had nothing whatever to do with his receiving the Military Grand Cross of the Bath in 1834. When the Order was extended in January 1815, all the General Officers who signalized them- selves in the war which hind just closed, were appointed Knights Grand Crosses, or Knights Commanders : but Sir HERBERT TAYLOR'S name was not among the distinguished band, though they amounted altogether to 252, and it is wellknown that he never wanted Courtly influence to support his claims. The fact is, that the only affair in which he was engaged was so utterly insignificant that none of the Officers were rewarded with honours; and though Lieutenant-Colonel HERMES, who is mentioned M the same despatch, commanded a brigade on the occasion, he did not even receive the third class of the Bath. Can it then be pretended' that notwithstanding Sir HERBERT'S military services were allowed to pass unrewarded in the shower of honours bestowed in 1815, they were the cause of his being appointed a Military Grand Cron in April 1834, twenty years afterwards; or that they afforded say justification for violating the regulations of 1815, by which it was provided that no Officer of the Army or Navy should hencefor- ward receive that distinction without having first been a Knight Commander ? The " Old Officer " talks of the severity of the • Spestatar, 94th February 11138, weather in Sir HERBERT'S solitary. campaign, and of the amenity a his manners : we .will deny netther of these statements—but dothey form any .clatm to the highest military reward the Crown can bestow ?--which has been often .thought sufficient for a General,


or sn Admiral commanding chief who had gained a victory ? The hero of Maida, for example, obtained no higher honours ; and it is still, with scandalous Injustice, withheld from Sir SIDNMY Sum, the hero scandalous